Matupa v St John's Winchester Charity

An Employment Tribunal may find that an employer conducted a reasonable misconduct investigation despite an unpursued line of inquiry where the evidence obtained adequately establishes the material allegations and the omitted evidence was not critical. The adequacy of an investigation depends on its substance and the significance of the missing step.

Brief reasons are undesirable. However, inadequate explanation does not require remission where the Tribunal's conclusion is justified by the underlying material and reveals no material error of law.

The claimant, a care assistant at a nursing home, was dismissed following concerns about lateness, inaccurate timesheets, inadequate care of residents during a night shift, and aggressive conduct at a return-to-work meeting. His internal appeal failed.

The Southampton Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims for racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. At a Rule 3(10) hearing, the Employment Appeal Tribunal permitted one ground to proceed: whether the Tribunal had adequately addressed the fairness of the employer's investigation, particularly the failure to interview the agency nurse in charge of the relevant night shift and the absence of her handover note.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal's conclusion that the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation was justified and disclosed no material error of law.

2. The Tribunal's reasons on investigation were unduly brief. Its finding that the employer had investigated reasonably nevertheless had to be considered against its other findings and the material underlying the dismissal decision.

3. The dismissal letter and attached witness statements showed that the employer had investigated the complaints by obtaining statements from the carers who observed the residents after the claimant's night shift, the deputy matron, and witnesses to the return-to-work meeting. The Tribunal was entitled to accept that evidence and had found the employer's witnesses reliable.

4. The failure to interview the agency nurse who supervised the night shift was potentially surprising. It did not make the investigation unreasonable because her evidence was not critical to the decisive allegations. The carers' evidence concerned elementary care failures within the claimant's own group of residents, for which the claimant was the person able to provide an explanation. The Tribunal was entitled to reject his confusing, contradictory and inconsistent account.

5. Although the Tribunal should have explained its conclusion more fully, a justified conclusion does not require remission merely because it was insufficiently elaborated. The underlying material supported the finding of a reasonable investigation.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed; the Employment Tribunal's dismissal of the unfair-dismissal claim was upheld.
• Employment Tribunal: Southampton Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Coles sitting with two lay members, dismissed claims for racial discrimination and unfair dismissal by a decision sent to the parties on 28 January 2014.