Cases6002013/2024

Claimant v Gloucestershire County Council

12 September 2025Before Employment Judge Elizabeth GibsonExeterremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The claimant was not told the substance of allegations until his interview, was not given opportunity to question witnesses, and the investigator failed to put the claimant's exculpatory evidence to the complainants. The investigation was not sufficiently thorough given the seriousness of the allegations and their career-ending consequences. The disciplinary and appeal processes compounded these defects rather than remedying them.

Facts

Mr Hatch was a firefighter with nearly 20 years' service dismissed for gross misconduct following allegations of inappropriate physical contact and language by two female firefighters. The most serious allegations included touching a colleague's shirt near her breasts, squeezing a colleague's buttock during a hug, and continued inappropriate greetings despite being told to stop. Mr Hatch adamantly denied the most serious allegations and said all interactions were part of the reciprocal workplace banter culture. He was suspended on 11 September 2023 but not told the substance of allegations until his investigatory interview on 13 November 2023, causing him severe anxiety. He was dismissed on 21 February 2024 following a disciplinary hearing and his appeal was rejected on 24 April 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The claimant was not informed of the detailed allegations until his interview despite repeated requests, denying him proper opportunity to prepare. The investigator failed to re-interview the complainants to put the claimant's version of events to them, witnesses did not attend the disciplinary hearing for cross-examination, and there were no signed witness statements. The tribunal found the investigation did not meet the standard of thoroughness required given the seriousness of the allegations and their career-ending consequences for the claimant. The disciplinary hearing and appeal compounded rather than remedied these procedural defects.

Practical note

Even with a genuine belief in gross misconduct, a dismissal will be unfair if the investigation is not sufficiently thorough given the gravity of allegations and consequences for the employee, particularly where exculpatory evidence is not properly explored and witnesses are not made available for questioning.

Legal authorities cited

ILEA v Gravett 1998 IRLR 497Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379In re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563A v B [2003] IRLR 405Sneddon v Carr-Gomm Scotland Limited 2012 IRLR 820West v Percy Community Centre EAT 0101/15Lock v Cardiff Railway Company Ltd 1998 IRLR 358Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2013] IRLR 854Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 94Andrew and Kerr v The Scottish Ministers [2025] EAT 117

Statutes

Equality Act 2010ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.94(1)ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.98(2)

Case details

Case number
6002013/2024
Decision date
12 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Gloucestershire County Council
Sector
local government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Firefighter
Service
20 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No