| In a recent case called Alom v Financial Conduct Authority, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that flaws in surrounding circumstances – such as procedural imperfections or unpursued allegations – do not necessarily render a dismissal unfair if the key disciplinary allegations are fairly handled.
Mr Alom faced an investigation into various allegations, but only two proceeded to disciplinary hearing:
- That he had sent a harassing anonymous email to a colleague
- That he had breached confidentiality by referencing findings from a separate investigation in an email
He was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination, both of which were rejected by the Employment tribunal. He appealed to the EAT.
The EAT dismissed his appeal, making the following key points:
- Interview transcripts: Mr Alom argued that the investigation was flawed because he wasn’t given full transcripts of the investigatory interviews. The EAT found this did not affect fairness. The transcripts related to wider issues that were not taken forward. Mr Alom had sufficient information about the allegations actually pursued.
- HR script: The decision-maker used a script provided by HR, but the tribunal found he had not rubber-stamped HR’s view. The script did not indicate pre-determination or improper influence.
- Unlawful computer search: Some evidence had been obtained via a search that may have breached Mr Alom’s Article 8 rights. However, that material was not relied upon in the disciplinary process, and so had no bearing on the dismissal’s fairness.
|
