The employee, Mr Alom, had formed a friendship with a female colleague that eventually broke down. After a canteen incident, the colleague received an anonymous and hostile email, which she raised with HR. The employer investigated and concluded that Mr Alom had sent the email.
A year later, Mr Alom emailed managers referencing a grievance he had raised against the female colleague. The employer then brought two disciplinary charges: harassment (in relation to the anonymous email) and breach of confidentiality (regarding the later email). Both were upheld, and Mr Alom was dismissed for misconduct.
Mr Alom brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and victimisation, all of which were dismissed by the Tribunal. On appeal, he argued that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because he was not given transcripts of the colleague’s interviews, that the disciplinary hearing had been prejudged due to a script, and that the delay in receiving the Tribunal’s judgment (nine months) was unreasonable.
EAT
The EAT disagreed. It held that:
- The employer was only required to give enough information to allow Mr Alom to respond to disciplinary charges, and since those charges were based solely on the two emails, transcripts of the broader investigation interviews weren’t necessary.
- The disciplinary script, while not perfect, still left room for the employee’s input and didn’t suggest the outcome had been predetermined.
- Although a search of his work computer might have engaged Article 8 rights (privacy), it didn’t affect the fairness of the dismissal as the employer didn’t rely on any of that material.
- Finally, while the delay in judgment was “unacceptably long”, it didn’t undermine the reasoning or outcome.
Comment
This case serves as a timely reminder of the importance of keeping disciplinary processes focused and fair. Employers are not required to disclose every piece of background information, only enough to allow the employee to respond meaningfully to the allegations. Provided the employee is given sufficient detail and their response is genuinely considered, tribunals are unlikely to find a dismissal procedurally unfair.
The case also reinforces that internal scripts and guidance documents are perfectly acceptable, as long as they don’t predetermine the outcome.
While delays in tribunal decisions can be frustrating, they don’t automatically undermine the validity of a well-reasoned judgment.
With the new duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace firmly in place, and further reform in the pipeline extending harassment protection, we are likely to see more cases involving harassment. Employers should prioritise fostering a respectful workplace culture, supported by regular training and meaningful employee engagement, to help prevent issues from arising.
If you need any assistance with regard to the issues raised in this update please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Authored by Kataura Quayson.
