Claimant v Icon Aerospace Technology Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to significant deficiencies in the investigation and disciplinary procedure. The respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation into exculpatory evidence, failed to provide clarity on the disciplinary charges, did not provide the complainant's letter to the claimant before dismissal, and did not have reasonable grounds for its belief in the claimant's guilt. The tribunal concluded dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. However, a 50% Polkey reduction was applied as there was a 50% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been followed.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Cell Leader from October 2016 until his summary dismissal on 26 February 2025 for alleged harassment and sexual harassment of a female colleague, Ms Robinson. Ms Robinson complained that the claimant made rude comments in a sexual manner/context, spent a lot of time hanging around her at work, and that his behaviour made her dread coming to work. The claimant denied the allegations and said he and Ms Robinson had a relationship outside of work. He alleged Ms Robinson sent him inappropriate messages and photos and was motivated by personal grudge when he stopped contact. The respondent conducted an investigation and disciplinary process which the tribunal found to be significantly flawed.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. While there was a fair reason (conduct), the investigation was deficient, the disciplinary charges were not clearly articulated, key evidence (the complaint letter) was not provided to the claimant, and new appeal evidence was not shared with the claimant. The respondent did not have reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct and dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal applied a 50% Polkey reduction, a 10% ACAS uplift, and a 10% contributory fault reduction.
Practical note
Employers must clearly articulate disciplinary charges, provide all key evidence to the employee (including the original complaint), thoroughly investigate exculpatory evidence including the context of workplace relationships, and share any new evidence gathered on appeal with the employee before reaching a decision, particularly in harassment cases where context and credibility are critical.
Adjustments
50% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event if a fair investigation and procedure had been followed
The claimant was in the habit of making comments about his clothing, appearance and physique in a sexually suggestive manner to female colleagues including Ms Robinson, and invited Ms Robinson to movie nights at work. This conduct was blameworthy and contributed to the dismissal, though the respondent's procedural errors were also a significant contributing factor. A 10% reduction was just and equitable.
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, specifically paragraphs 5 (failure to carry out necessary investigations) and 9 (failure to notify employee with sufficient information about alleged misconduct and provide written evidence including witness statements). The failures were not deliberate but resulted from inexperience. A 10% uplift was just and equitable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6017191/2025
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Cell Leader
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister