Course leader dismissed after 23 years: flawed investigation leads to £53k award
A tribunal found that New City College unfairly dismissed a course leader with 23 years' service after a flawed investigation into misconduct during the pandemic. The claimant was awarded £53,256.95 including a 20% ACAS uplift.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant had 23 years' unblemished service as a Course Leader for Sport.
- He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after altering lesson times and registers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the dismissing officer failed to consider mitigating evidence.
- The claimant's anxiety and depression did not meet the legal definition of disability at the relevant time.
- The claimant obtained alternative employment three days after dismissal but at a lower salary.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work at Havering Sixth Form College as a Tourism Lecturer, later becoming Course Leader for Sport.
-
TUPE transfer
Claimant's employment transferred to New City College Limited following a merger.
-
First alleged misconduct
Claimant moved Friday afternoon sports lesson forward and left site early; coaching sessions converted to drop-in sessions.
-
Second alleged misconduct
Similar pattern of moving lesson and leaving early; registers marked as if full session took place.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended on full pay pending investigation into allegations of gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing chaired by Mr Araniyasundaran; claimant accompanied by union rep.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; effective date of termination.
-
New employment
Claimant started work at Crossover Technology on a lower salary of £30,000 per annum.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal chaired by Mr McDonald; appeal dismissed on 16 February 2021.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and breach of contract; dismissed disability discrimination claims.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £53,256.95 compensation including 20% ACAS uplift.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, and whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair. It also considered whether the claimant's anxiety and depression amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the employer breached contract by failing to pay notice. The disability discrimination claims were dismissed because the claimant's anxiety and depression did not meet the legal definition of disability at the relevant time.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £14,257.00
- Compensatory award: £38,999.95
- Total: £53,256.95 (includes 20% ACAS Code uplift for unreasonable failure to follow a fair procedure)
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough investigation that considers their length of service and any mitigating factors.
- Employers should not rely on a flawed investigation or ignore evidence that could support the employee's case, especially during exceptional circumstances like the pandemic.
- A 20% ACAS Code uplift can be applied if the employer unreasonably fails to follow a fair disciplinary procedure.
- Claimants who find alternative work quickly may still recover compensation for loss of earnings if the new role pays less.
What this case shows in practice
A course leader with 23 years of unblemished service was summarily dismissed after altering lesson times and registers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that New City College's investigation was flawed: the investigating officer did not properly consider the claimant's explanation that he was trying to protect students and staff during a public health crisis. The dismissing officer also failed to take into account the claimant's long service and clean disciplinary record.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have conducted a more balanced investigation, including reviewing the claimant's mitigating evidence and considering alternatives to dismissal. The tribunal noted that the ACAS Code of Practice was not followed, leading to a 20% uplift in compensation. A reasonable employer would have recognised that the pandemic created unusual pressures and that the claimant's actions, while wrong, did not necessarily amount to gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that even in conduct dismissals, employers must carry out a proper investigation and consider all relevant factors, especially for long-serving employees. The 20% ACAS uplift sends a clear message that procedural failures will be penalised. For employees, it shows that finding a new job quickly does not bar a claim for compensation if the new salary is lower. The dismissal of the disability claims also highlights the importance of medical evidence in establishing a disability under the Equality Act.
Similar cases
Dismissed for providing a reference: flawed investigation leads to unfair dismissal win
A tribunal found that a care organisation unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee for gross misconduct after a flawed investigation into a reference she provided. The employee was awarded £13,578.56.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.
Senior bookseller dismissed without notice after 13 years: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal
A senior bookseller with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being summarily dismissed during an investigation meeting. The tribunal awarded £11,471.80, including a 12.5% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Shunter dismissed for following unsafe custom and practice: unfair dismissal upheld
A shunter with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after an accident while 'buddying up' — a practice that was custom and practice at the site. The tribunal found procedural flaws and pressure from senior management made the dismissal unreasonable.