NHS worker unfairly dismissed over alleged toilet filming after biased investigation
A community healthcare professional was unfairly dismissed by Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust after a biased investigation into an allegation he tried to film a colleague in the ladies' toilets. The tribunal awarded £21,469.59.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #alleged-filming-in-toilet
- #stale-medical-report
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after being accused of attempting to film a female colleague in the ladies' toilets.
- The claimant admitted using the ladies' toilets because the men's toilets were soiled, but denied any filming.
- The investigating officer's report was found to be biased, omitting evidence supporting the claimant and including speculative points.
- The dismissing officer did not adequately consider the claimant's explanation or the photos showing the men's toilets were dirty.
- The appeal did not cure the procedural defects; it focused on rebutting the claimant's points rather than a full rehearing.
- The tribunal found the claimant's version of events more plausible and that he did not commit gross misconduct.
Timeline
-
Incident in ladies' toilets
The claimant used the ladies' toilets at the Office building. Complainant A alleged he attempted to film her with his phone. The claimant said he dropped his phone and was picking it up.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended with immediate effect after a meeting with management. He was told the allegation was attempting to film/record a female colleague.
-
First investigatory interview
The claimant was interviewed by Investigating Officer Mrs Chamberlain. He denied the allegation and explained he used the ladies' toilets due to dirty men's toilets.
-
Arrest by police
The claimant was arrested by police, who seized electronic devices. He was released early the next day.
-
Fit note for stress
The claimant's GP issued a fit note signing him off work for one month due to stress at work.
-
Occupational Health assessment
OH report stated the claimant was unfit to attend disciplinary meetings due to diminished cognitive ability.
-
Second OH report
OH consultant found the claimant fit to attend meetings with reasonable adjustments.
-
Investigation report completed
Mrs Chamberlain completed her investigation report, concluding there was a case to answer. The report was criticised for bias.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing took place via MS Teams. The claimant was represented by a trade union rep.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Thorne decided to summarily dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct. The claimant was informed by letter.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal was heard by Mrs Dickens, who upheld the dismissal.
-
CPS decision
The Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence and took no further action.
-
HCPC outcome
The HCPC concluded the case against the claimant was not well-founded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant committed gross misconduct by attempting to film a colleague in the toilet, and whether a fair procedure was followed.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The investigation report was biased, omitting evidence that supported the claimant and including speculative points. The dismissing officer did not adequately consider the claimant's explanation or photos showing the men's toilets were dirty. The appeal did not cure these defects.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £807.00
- Compensatory award: £20,662.59
- Polkey reduction (25%): applied to compensatory award
- Contributory fault reduction (25%): applied to both awards
- Total awarded: £21,469.59
Lessons & takeaways
- A biased investigation that omits exculpatory evidence will likely render a dismissal unfair.
- Dismissing officers must actively consider the employee's explanation and any supporting evidence, not just rely on the investigation report.
- Appeals that merely rebut the employee's points rather than conduct a full rehearing cannot cure procedural defects.
- Employers should await the outcome of police investigations before finalising disciplinary decisions, especially where criminal charges are possible.
A flawed process from the start
This case shows how a biased investigation can unravel an entire disciplinary process. The claimant, a community healthcare professional, was accused of attempting to film a female colleague in the ladies' toilets. He admitted using the toilets because the men's were soiled, but denied any filming. The investigating officer's report was criticised by the tribunal for omitting evidence that supported the claimant, including photos of the dirty men's toilets, and for including speculative points that painted him in a negative light.
The dismissing officer did not adequately consider the claimant's explanation or the photographic evidence. The tribunal found the claimant's version of events more plausible and concluded he did not commit gross misconduct. The appeal hearing was also flawed, focusing on rebutting the claimant's points rather than conducting a full rehearing.
What the employer could have done differently
Northern Care Alliance could have avoided this outcome by ensuring the investigation was balanced and impartial. They should have considered all relevant evidence, including the claimant's explanation and the photos. A fair procedure would have involved a more thorough investigation and a genuine consideration of the claimant's account. The employer also rushed to dismiss before the police and HCPC had concluded their investigations, which later found no case to answer.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers must follow a fair procedure, especially in conduct dismissals. A biased investigation and failure to consider the employee's explanation will likely lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. The Polkey reduction (25%) reflects the chance that a fair process might still have led to dismissal, and the contributory fault reduction (25%) reflects the claimant's own blameworthy conduct in using the ladies' toilets. Employees facing similar allegations should ensure they have evidence to support their account and challenge any biased investigation.
Similar cases
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Team leader dismissed for defeating safety system wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a safety breach. The tribunal found the employer's process was inadequate and reduced compensation by 20% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Caretaker unfairly dismissed after council panel included complainants' spouses
A part-time caretaker was unfairly dismissed by Fordbridge Town Council after a disciplinary panel included the wife of a complainant and an appeal panel included the husband of a witness. The tribunal awarded £1,060.41.
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.