Ms L Jennings v Culture and Sport Glasgow — 2024

Ms L Jennings was employed by Culture and Sport Glasgow, trading as Glasgow Life, from 9 July 2018 until her dismissal on 30 August 2023 as a Lead Acro Coach/Performance (Gymnastics). The tribunal recorded that an automatic unfair dismissal complaint framed as whistleblowing under s.103A ERA 1996 had been withdrawn before the merits hearing, and it went on to determine the ordinary unfair dismissal claim arising from events at the Yate International Gymnastics Training Camp on 13 and 14 August 2022.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct and that that belief was the reason for dismissal. It held that Jane Macadam carried out a reasonable investigation: she gathered statements from X, Tamara McDonald and Dick Murray, interviewed the claimant, and was not required to interview the additional witnesses identified by the claimant or to carry out a preliminary fact-find before suspension. On the evidence, there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the claimant shouted at X, removed X's phone so she could not call her mother, discouraged others from comforting X, and failed to exercise reasonable care for X's health and welfare on 13 August 2022 after NHS 24 advised that X should be taken to hospital.

The tribunal also found reasonable grounds for conclusions that the claimant's conduct breached relevant provisions of the respondent's Code of Conduct and Code of Discipline, although it rejected reliance on some of the specific code paragraphs relied on in allegation 6. It rejected arguments that Scottish Gymnastics influenced the process, that there was a breach of natural justice because Richard Campbell had earlier been interviewed, that the claimant was unfairly denied an opportunity to question witnesses, and that lack of rest or feeling unwell on 14 August 2022 were material mitigating factors. Looking at the disciplinary process as a whole, the tribunal held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and that the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed. No remedy was awarded because the unfair dismissal claim failed; in the alternative, the tribunal said the claimant's conduct was highly culpable and would have justified a 100% reduction to both basic and compensatory award.