Dismissed for racist comment based on anonymous witness: investigation found unfair
A rigger with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after an investigation relied on an anonymous witness who refused to provide a statement. The tribunal awarded £39,330.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #anonymous-witnesses
- #acas-code-uplift
- #racist-comment-allegation
- #insufficient-investigation
- #summary-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for allegedly making a racist comment in the permit hut.
- The only witness to the alleged comment was anonymous and refused to provide a statement.
- The decision maker mistakenly believed the complaint was corroborated by multiple witnesses due to poor anonymisation.
- The tribunal found the investigation was not reasonable and the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
- The claimant had a clean disciplinary record and a character reference from his former manager.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a rigger with the respondent.
-
Alleged incident
Claimant allegedly made a racist comment in the permit hut. A complaint was made to a Dow Corning manager.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into the allegation.
-
Witness interviews
Investigators interviewed three anonymous witnesses; none provided a written statement.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting and denied the allegation.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Humphreys, accompanied by a colleague.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant's appeal was heard by Mr Trotman, who upheld the dismissal.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Trotman confirmed the dismissal was upheld.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Howden-Evans found the dismissal was unfair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. The employer's investigation was not reasonable because:
- The only witness to the alleged racist comment was anonymous and refused to provide a written statement.
- The decision-maker mistakenly believed the complaint was corroborated by multiple witnesses due to poor anonymisation of notes.
- The claimant had a clean disciplinary record and a character reference from his former manager.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,890
- Compensatory award: £37,440
- Total: £39,330
Lessons & takeaways
- Anonymous witnesses who refuse to provide statements should be treated with caution; their evidence alone may not support a reasonable belief in misconduct.
- Investigators must ensure they do not misinterpret anonymised notes as multiple witnesses; poor anonymisation can lead to unfair decisions.
- A clean disciplinary record and positive character references are relevant factors that should be weighed in the decision to dismiss.
- Employers should consider whether dismissal is proportionate, especially when the evidence is weak and the employee denies the allegation.
This case shows how a flawed investigation can lead to an unfair dismissal, even when the employer believes it is acting on a serious misconduct allegation. The rigger was summarily dismissed for allegedly making a racist comment in a permit hut, based on a complaint from an anonymous witness who refused to provide a written statement. The tribunal found that the employer's investigation was not reasonable because the decision-maker mistakenly thought there were multiple witnesses due to poor anonymisation of notes, when in fact there was only one witness who would not cooperate.
What went wrong
The employer could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more thorough investigation. The anonymous witness should have been encouraged to provide a statement, or the employer should have considered whether the evidence was strong enough to proceed. The decision-maker also failed to properly review the investigation notes, leading to the mistaken belief that there was corroboration. Additionally, the claimant's clean disciplinary record and a character reference from his former manager were not given sufficient weight.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers must carry out reasonable investigations before dismissing for misconduct, especially when the evidence is weak or based on anonymous sources. The tribunal's award of £39,330 reflects the seriousness of the procedural failings. For employees facing similar allegations, this case highlights the importance of challenging weak evidence and ensuring the employer follows a fair process.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed by email without hearing: unfair but 100% contributory conduct
A tribunal found that a security officer with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being sacked by email without any disciplinary hearing, but reduced her compensation to zero because her own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal.
30-year employee dismissed for gross misconduct without any disciplinary procedure: unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that Dunwood Specialties Limited unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee after failing to follow any disciplinary process, but reduced compensation by 80% because the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.
Summary dismissal and minimum wage underpayment: 11-year employee wins unfair dismissal claim
A former employee with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed and underpaid the national minimum wage. The tribunal awarded £4,694.53, including an ACAS uplift.
Office manager called managers 'dickheads' as a joke and was sacked on the spot
An office manager with 3 years 7 months' service was unfairly dismissed after calling her managers 'dickheads' in jest during a heated meeting. The tribunal found the employer's subsequent disciplinary process was contrived and awarded £15,042.81.