The events came to management attention and Mr Jenkins, a former police officer and Head of the Youth Offending Service, undertook an investigation. He viewed the CCTV and interviewed those present and involved subsequently. SR told Mr Jenkins that while they were both very drunk, Mr Uddin had followed her into the disabled toilet, locked her in and assaulted her. She showed Mr Jenkins a photograph of bruising to her chest which she said had been caused by Mr Uddin.
Mr Jenkins recommended that there was a case to answer for gross misconduct and sent a report with supporting materials to the person who was to be responsible for conducting the disciplinary hearing.
Between the investigation and the disciplinary hearing, SR made a complaint to the police (having been urged by Mr Jenkins to do so).
The police investigating officer noted a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies after viewing the CCTV and discussed these with SR. The result of this was that SR withdrew her allegations and signed a short withdrawal statement saying she did not remember being sexually assaulted.
The withdrawal of SR’s complaint to the police became known to Mr Jenkins prior to the disciplinary hearing but he failed to pass this information onto the person responsible for conducting the disciplinary hearing.
At the disciplinary hearing, the allegations were upheld and Mr Uddin was summarily dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct and pursued a claim of unfair dismissal.
Decision:
Mr Uddin was unsuccessful in his unfair dismissal claim despite the fact that by the time of the Employment Tribunal hearing it was known that Mr Jenkins had not passed on the information about SR withdrawing her complaint to the police. In evidence, the dismissing officer said that had she known that SR’s complaint to the police had been withdrawn, she would have wanted to know why. The Tribunal decided that notwithstanding this point, there had been sufficient information on which the dismissing officer had been entitled to draw her conclusions and reach her decision to dismiss.
Mr Uddin appealed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that Mr Uddin’s dismissal was in fact unfair. In reaching its decision, the EAT had regard to a previous case decided by the Supreme Court (Royal Mail v Jhuti [2019]) in which it was noted that ordinarily, when identifying the reason for a dismissal, courts need generally look no further than the reasons given by the appointed decision-maker. However, where the real reason for the dismissal is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, it is the court’s duty to look further.
The EAT applied this reasoning and concluded that the same principles apply in terms of the court’s duty to look further in circumstances where there is a failure to provide accurate and up-to-date information which, according to the EAT, undermined the dismissing manager’s ability to consider the true position.
What does this mean for you?
The case emphasises the on-going nature of a thorough investigation and confirms the obligation to provide updated information if it comes to light even after the conclusion of the investigation. Employers should ensure that this is made clear to those involved in the disciplinary process.
0 Comments