Claimant v LTE Group
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The investigation failed to thoroughly examine the claimant's defence that managers instructed her to conduct 200+ Highfield examinations before approval. Key witnesses (AWW, Kate Harrison) were not interviewed, the claimant's emails were not searched, and the disciplinary officer failed to engage with evidence she provided. The process fell outside the band of reasonable responses, despite the employer having reasonable belief in the misconduct itself.
Facts
The claimant, a tutor since 1997, transferred to LTE Group (Novus) in February 2023 under TUPE. Before the respondent became Highfield-approved in April 2023, she delivered 200+ Highfield examinations under instruction (she claimed) from managers Kate Harrison and Jayne Campbell, leaving papers undated and using Harrison's tutor number. After approval, the papers were backdated. In June 2023, further malpractice was discovered. The claimant admitted the conduct but said she acted under management instruction and had raised concerns. She was suspended, investigated, and dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2023.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to serious procedural failures. The investigation was inadequate: it failed to properly examine how 200+ examinations could occur without management knowledge, didn't interview key witness AWW, didn't search the claimant's work emails, and took management denials at face value. The disciplinary officer had a closed mind and the appeal didn't cure all defects. However, compensation was reduced by 70% for contributory fault as the claimant knew her conduct was wrong and dishonest.
Practical note
Even where an employer has reasonable belief in misconduct, dismissal will be unfair if the investigation fails to adequately explore the employee's mitigation—particularly where the defence is acting under management instruction and there is corroborative evidence and no obvious motive for the employee to act dishonestly.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 12.6 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Claimant conducted 200+ Highfield examinations before the respondent was approved, left papers undated knowing incorrect dates would be added later, used another tutor's identification number, and knew this was wrong and potentially dismissible. Despite minimal training, she was an experienced tutor and her dishonest behaviour directly caused her dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2603311/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- LTE Group
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Tutor
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 26 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No