Senior lecturer with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds university's decision
A senior lecturer and course director with 27 years' service was fairly dismissed for bullying and harassment after a lengthy internal process. The tribunal rejected all claims of race discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed following an investigation, disciplinary and appeal process for bullying and harassment of colleagues.
- The claimant had raised 13 grievances and multiple appeals against various colleagues and managers.
- The tribunal found the claimant's allegations of race discrimination were made in bad faith and were cynical.
- The claimant's protected disclosure claims failed because he could not produce the document he relied on to show a legal obligation.
- The respondent offered the claimant £50,000 to settle the claims, which was rejected.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Dr Leary-Owhin began working as a Senior Lecturer and Course Director at London South Bank University.
-
Annual Work Plan email
Dr Tyler emailed the team with a proposed Annual Work Plan, showing the claimant was about 30 hours under capacity.
-
Claimant raised dissertation concerns
The claimant emailed Dr Tyler expressing concern about the number of dissertations he was asked to supervise.
-
Claimant's email to Dr Tyler
The claimant emailed Dr Tyler, copying the team, criticising his handling of the dissertation issue and referencing past treatment.
-
Claimant's email to entire team
The claimant sent a lengthy email to the UELS team, accusing Dr Tyler of unfair treatment and criticising colleagues.
-
Grievance against Dr Tyler
The claimant raised a formal grievance against Dr Tyler.
-
Grievance against Ms Griffiths-Jones
The claimant raised a grievance against Ms Griffiths-Jones, alleging discrimination.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation into allegations of bullying and harassment.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held, chaired by Mr Stevenson, with the claimant accompanied by Dr Jarvis.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with 3 months' notice for misconduct, including bullying and harassment.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard by Professor Pheonix and a panel.
-
Appeal rejected
The appeal was rejected, and the dismissal was upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, subjected to race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or detriment for making protected disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant, including unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and detriment for protected disclosures.
Key reasons:
- The university had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct after a thorough investigation and disciplinary process.
- The claimant's allegations of race discrimination were found to have been made in bad faith and were cynical.
- The claimant could not produce the document he relied on to show a protected disclosure.
No compensation was awarded as the respondent won the case.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service does not automatically protect against dismissal for misconduct; a fair process and reasonable belief in wrongdoing are key.
- Making multiple grievances and appeals can undermine credibility if they are found to be made in bad faith.
- If you rely on a document to support a protected disclosure claim, you must be able to produce it.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for misconduct if the employer follows a proper process. The claimant, a senior lecturer with 27 years' service, was dismissed after a series of grievances and counter-allegations of bullying and harassment. The tribunal found that the university's investigation and disciplinary procedure were thorough and that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and brought a wide range of claims, including race discrimination and whistleblowing. The tribunal found that his race discrimination allegations were made in bad faith, and he failed to produce a key document for his protected disclosure claim. Focusing on a narrower, stronger claim and ensuring evidence was available might have improved his prospects.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers can defend misconduct dismissals if they have a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds. It also highlights the risk of bringing multiple unsubstantiated claims, which can damage credibility. For employees, it underscores the importance of maintaining professional conduct and using internal processes constructively.
Similar cases
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: a capability decision that went too fast
A behaviour lead with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on outdated medical reports and failed to follow its own sickness procedure. The tribunal awarded £23,222, including £9,000 for injury to feelings.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: tribunal finds investigation fell short
A security officer with nearly five years' service was unfairly dismissed after leaving his post for a break and prayers. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate, failing to obtain CCTV or witness statements.
Legal executive unfairly dismissed after flawed disciplinary process
A legal executive was unfairly dismissed by ODT Professional Services Limited after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found fundamentally unfair. She was awarded £2,621.57 after reductions for contributory fault and the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Practice nurse dismissed for gross misconduct: flawed process but dismissal inevitable
A practice nurse with 46 years' experience was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed disciplinary process, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced her compensation by 60% for her own conduct. She was awarded £1,610.66.