Mr J Barker v Icon Aerospace Technology Ltd — 2025

Mr Barker was employed by Icon Aerospace Technology Ltd as a Cell Leader and was dismissed without notice on 26 February 2025 after Ms Robinson complained that he had made rude comments in a sexual context and paid her unwanted attention at work. The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed him for conduct-related reasons, namely a genuine belief that he had engaged in sexual harassment, but it held that the investigation and disciplinary process were not fair.

The tribunal found that the investigation by Mr Wilson was too limited. He did not sufficiently probe Ms Robinson’s complaint, did not ask for dates or context, did not explore whether the comments were directed at her or made generally, and did not properly investigate the allegation that Mr Barker was hanging around her at work. He also failed to put the full allegations to Mr Barker, did not provide him with Ms Robinson’s complaint letter, and did not take reasonable steps to investigate potentially relevant context, including the WhatsApp messages, the parties’ outside-work relationship, or evidence from other colleagues.

The tribunal held that the disciplinary invitation and dismissal letter were too vague, and that the case was presented in a way that suggested allegations about other women as well as Ms Robinson. The appeal process did not cure those defects, because although Mr Metcalfe investigated further by speaking to Freya, Mr Bussey and Ms Robinson, the new material was not shared with Mr Barker for comment before the appeal decision was made. The tribunal therefore found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct and that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.

For remedy purposes, the tribunal found that if the matter had been handled fairly there was a 50% chance Mr Barker would have been dismissed anyway and a 50% chance he would have received a sanction short of dismissal. It found a 10% reduction to the compensatory award would be appropriate for contributory fault, and a 10% uplift would be appropriate for the respondent’s unreasonable breaches of the ACAS Code. The tribunal also made findings that Mr Barker had engaged in blameworthy conduct at work by making sexualised comments about his appearance and inviting Ms Robinson on movie nights, but it held that those findings did not make the dismissal fair on the procedure followed.