Claimant v LTE Group

Tribunal concluded dismissal was fair. Respondent had genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that Claimant committed gross misconduct (malpractice and maladministration in claiming certificates without proper processes). Investigation was reasonable and thorough. Procedure was fair. Dismissal fell within range of reasonable responses given finding of gross misconduct.

Claimant was dismissed without notice. Tribunal concluded on objective assessment that Claimant's actions in claiming unmarked work and requesting/permitting colleague to claim for unmarked work for English learners was sufficiently serious to amount to fundamental breach of contract entitling Respondent to dismiss without notice.

Claimant alleged less favourable treatment in being subjected to disciplinary proceedings and dismissal compared to male comparator Lynworth Brown. Tribunal found Claimant failed to discharge burden to show sex was reason for treatment. Both Claimant and Mr Brown were subject to disciplinary proceedings. Mr Brown received different sanction due to distinguishing circumstances. No evidence of discriminatory attitude. Reason for dismissal was finding of gross misconduct, not sex.

First allegation (removal from prisons by Ms Huggett on 5 May 2023) failed as matter of fact — decision was made by prison service, not Ms Huggett. Second allegation (hindering representative at appeal hearing 31 October 2023) — Tribunal found some hindering occurred but was not related to race. Conduct was due to Mr Marshall wanting to control meeting and lack of clarity on companion's remit, not race.

Same factual allegations as race harassment. First allegation failed as not factually established. Second allegation: partial hindering occurred but not related to sex. Mr Marshall's conduct was due to wanting to manage meeting and uncertainty about companion's role, not sex. Tribunal also found conduct did not reasonably have the proscribed effect.

Respondent accepted two protected acts: grievance on 3 April 2023 and ET claim filed 6 October 2023. First alleged detriment (removal from prisons 5 May 2023) failed as not established as matter of fact. Second alleged detriment (hindering at appeal hearing 31 October 2023): some detriment occurred but Mr Marshall was unaware of ET claim at time of hearing and his conduct was not because of protected acts but due to his approach to managing the meeting.

Breach of section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied). Tribunal concluded no breach occurred. Claimant's request for John Neckles to accompany her following his allegedly racist comments to Mr Marshall was not reasonable, so gateway requirement in s.10(1) not satisfied. Later, when offered hearing with different manager (Ms Platt) where John Neckles could attend, Claimant declined.