Analyst dismissed for comments during cultural awareness training: procedural flaws led to unfair dismissal
A Grade 5 analyst at the National Crime Agency was unfairly dismissed after making allegedly racist comments during a training event. The tribunal found the process was flawed by an initial promise of informal resolution and a 16-month delay, but reduced compensation due to her own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #racially-offensive-comments
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 4 September 2020 for alleged gross misconduct after making comments during a cultural awareness training event.
- The claimant had initially been told the matter would be resolved informally with further training, but it was later escalated to a disciplinary process.
- The disciplinary hearing found the claimant guilty of gross misconduct based on witness accounts from four individuals.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal, but the tribunal found the process was procedurally unfair due to the initial assurance and the 16-month duration.
- The tribunal found the claimant contributed to her dismissal by making comments that could be perceived as racist.
- The compensatory award was reduced by 60% under Polkey and 50% for contributory conduct, and uplifted by 10% for ACAS Code breach.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant started working for the National Crime Agency as a Grade 5 Analyst on Operation Stovewood.
-
Concerns raised about trainer
The claimant expressed concerns that the trainer for a cultural awareness event was associated with a suspect in Operation Stovewood.
-
Training event and alleged comments
During a cultural awareness training event, the claimant allegedly made inappropriate comments about Muslim countries and 'going home'. Several witnesses reported the comments.
-
Initial informal resolution
Management decided to resolve the matter informally with further training and counselling, and the claimant was told it was resolved.
-
Referral to IOPC
The Professional Standards Unit referred the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct as a mandatory referral due to racial elements.
-
Investigatory interview
The claimant was interviewed as part of the investigation. She denied making the alleged comments but admitted to saying law enforcement in other countries is not as good as in the UK.
-
Investigation report
The investigation report recommended the matter proceed to a disciplinary hearing for possible gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing took place over two days. The claimant was accompanied by a trade union representative.
-
Summary dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The effective date of termination is 4 September 2020.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing was held, and the dismissal was upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the National Crime Agency acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct based on comments made during a cultural awareness training event, considering whether the investigation and decision fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that while the employer genuinely believed the claimant had made inappropriate comments, the process was procedurally unfair. The employer had initially told the claimant the matter would be dealt with informally, then later escalated it, and the whole process took 16 months.
Compensation was reduced as follows:
- Basic award: £807 (reduced by 50% for contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £6,514.18 (reduced by 60% under Polkey and 50% for contributory conduct, then uplifted by 10% for ACAS Code breach)
- Total damages: £7,321.18
Lessons & takeaways
- If your employer initially tells you a matter is resolved informally, they cannot later use it as grounds for dismissal without good reason and a fair process.
- Long delays in disciplinary processes (here 16 months) can make a dismissal procedurally unfair, even if the underlying conduct is serious.
- Making comments that could be perceived as racist, even if unintended, can significantly reduce your compensation if you are dismissed.
- The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures applies to all employers; failure to follow it can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how an employer's initial handling of a conduct issue can undermine a later dismissal. The claimant, a Grade 5 analyst on Operation Stovewood, made comments during a cultural awareness training event that several colleagues found offensive. Initially, management decided to resolve the matter informally with further training, and the claimant was told it was resolved. However, the matter was later escalated to a formal disciplinary process after a mandatory referral to the police conduct watchdog, leading to her summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the employer's decision to change course without clear justification, combined with a 16-month delay from the incident to dismissal, made the process unfair. The employer had not followed the ACAS Code, which contributed to the finding of unfairness.
What the employer could have done differently
The National Crime Agency could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by being consistent from the outset. If they intended to treat the comments as potential gross misconduct, they should not have given the impression that the matter was closed. They should also have progressed the investigation more quickly. A shorter, more focused process would have reduced the risk of procedural unfairness.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that even in cases involving potentially offensive comments, employers must follow a fair process. The tribunal acknowledged that the claimant contributed to her dismissal by making the comments, which reduced her compensation significantly. However, the procedural failures meant the dismissal was still unfair. For employees, it shows that a flawed process can win a case, but contributory conduct can dramatically reduce the award.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
Care worker dismissed for mistreating dementia resident: unfair process but no compensation
A care home worker was unfairly dismissed after procedural flaws, but the tribunal found her guilty of the alleged misconduct and reduced compensation to zero.