Claimant v London School of Economics
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal at the liability hearing in March 2023. The dismissal was not supported by appropriate evidence and the decision was not one open to a reasonable employer. The respondent failed to comply with ACAS Code on disciplinary procedures including failing to properly notify the claimant of all allegations and not allowing a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The tribunal upheld the complaint of wrongful dismissal at the liability hearing in March 2023. The claimant was not in fundamental breach of contract to justify summary dismissal. The alleged misconduct could not support a finding of gross misconduct.
The tribunal rejected claims of dismissal and detriment for union related activities at the liability hearing in March 2023. The allegations were not supported by evidence.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a cleaner by the respondent from 2011 (following TUPE transfer in 2018) until summary dismissal on 7 October 2021 for alleged misconduct. The tribunal had previously found the dismissal both unfair and wrongful. At the remedy hearing, the tribunal considered reinstatement/re-engagement but found mutual trust and confidence had broken down on both sides. The claimant had continued part-time church work but made minimal efforts to find alternative employment. The senior manager Mr Blair maintained an unreasonable belief in the claimant's guilt despite lack of supporting evidence.
Decision
The tribunal refused reinstatement and re-engagement due to irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence. It awarded a basic award of £7,415.60, compensatory award of £5,621.26 (limited to four months due to failure to mitigate, with 20% ACAS uplift for serious procedural breaches), and wrongful dismissal damages of £4,449.33, totalling £17,486.19. The tribunal found the respondent had seriously breached ACAS Code provisions on notification of allegations and opportunity to respond.
Practical note
Even where dismissal is found unfair and wrongful, reinstatement/re-engagement will be refused where there is genuine breakdown of mutual trust and confidence on both sides, but claimants who fail to actively mitigate their loss will have compensatory awards significantly reduced regardless of the employer's procedural failings.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 35.3 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Respondent breached ACAS Code paragraph 9 (failing to properly notify claimant in writing of alleged misconduct with sufficient detail), paragraph 12 (not allowing reasonable opportunity to set out case regarding allegations that were reopened), and paragraph 5 (inadequate investigation of historical incidents). The tribunal found the breaches cumulatively serious and fell far short of fairness and transparency requirements.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201268/2022
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Cleaner
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No