Dronsfield v The University of Reading

In assessing unfair dismissal, the tribunal must decide the objective fairness of the process as a whole. It need not address every detailed submission, provided that its reasons, read fairly and in the round, disclose why the substantial issues were resolved.

An investigator may properly confine a final report to factual findings and leave evaluative conclusions on disciplinary charges to the disciplinary decision-maker. The removal of provisional evaluative conclusions does not itself make a dismissal unfair where the employee’s factual account remains before the decision-makers, the rationale for the revision is identified, and the process, including the internal appeal, is objectively fair.

The Claimant, an academic, was dismissed after a disciplinary process arising from an unreported sexual relationship with a student whom he continued to assess and supervise. His contract permitted dismissal only for conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with his duties.

An earlier Employment Tribunal decision that the dismissal was fair was overturned on appeal and the claim was remitted for a complete rehearing: [2016] ICR 1107. The second Employment Tribunal again dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim.

The Claimant appealed on the basis that late revisions to the investigators’ draft report, made following advice from the Respondent’s solicitor, had removed conclusions favourable to him and irredeemably tainted the ensuing disciplinary process. The central issue was whether the Employment Tribunal had adequately addressed that case and given sufficient reasons for finding the dismissal fair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal did not err in law or fail to provide adequate reasons for holding that the dismissal was fair.

2. The earlier appellate decision required the fresh tribunal to determine whether the investigators had changed, or merely omitted, conclusions favourable to the Claimant, why that had occurred, and whether dismissal was objectively fair in the light of any omission. The second Employment Tribunal had done so. It found that the investigators accepted advice that their final report should not determine whether the admitted facts amounted to abuse of power, breach of duty or conduct of the contractual gravity required for dismissal. Those were evaluative matters for a subsequent disciplinary tribunal.

3. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that this was a reasonable and fair approach. The final report did not suppress the Claimant’s factual account. His written material and the record of his investigation meeting were available to the disciplinary decision-makers. There was no finding, or properly advanced case, of serious impropriety, pressure, or alteration designed to make dismissal more likely.

4. The reasons had to be read as a whole and without a fussy analysis of isolated wording. The reference to admitted breaches of the “rules” concerned the admitted, unreported relationship and did not show that the Tribunal had overlooked the other disciplinary charges. It was clear that the Tribunal understood the removed conclusions on abuse of power, duty of care and the overarching contractual standard.

5. The Tribunal was also entitled to assess fairness on an end-to-end basis, including the internal appeal. The appeal officer had considered the report revisions and upheld dismissal on findings of failure to report the relationship and breach of duty of care, while rejecting abuse of power. The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for concluding that the remaining findings and dismissal were reasonably reached.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: This appeal was dismissed. The second Employment Tribunal's dismissal of the unfair-dismissal claim was upheld.
• Employment Tribunal, Watford: Following a complete rehearing, the Tribunal dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The first Tribunal's decision that the dismissal was fair was allowed and remitted for a fresh hearing: [2016] ICR 1107.