Branch manager dismissed for sexual comments loses unfair dismissal claim but wins £19,402 bonus
A tribunal upheld the dismissal of a branch manager who made inappropriate sexual comments to female colleagues, but ordered his former employer to pay £19,402 in unpaid bonuses he earned before being sacked.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #sexual-language
- #inappropriate-behaviour
- #bonus-entitlement
- #contract-interpretation
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as branch manager from 11 December 2017 until dismissal on 8 September 2021.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after finding he made inappropriate sexual comments and engaged in unwanted physical contact with female colleagues.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation and fair procedure.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses.
- The claimant succeeded in his claim for payment of two annual bonuses totalling £19,402.05, which were earned before dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant joined respondent as a sales executive.
-
Promoted to sales manager
Claimant promoted to sales manager.
-
Became branch manager
Claimant became branch manager at Tewkesbury branch.
-
Complaints received
Mr Riley was told by an employee that the claimant had made inappropriate comments.
-
Written complaints submitted
Ms Anderson, Ms Jones, and Mr Clack submitted written complaints about the claimant's behaviour.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Disciplinary hearing letter sent
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 7 September.
-
Evidence provided to claimant
Redacted copies of witness statements were sent to the claimant.
-
First day of disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing commenced; allegations put to claimant; adjourned for further investigation.
-
Dismissal
Disciplinary hearing reconvened; claimant dismissed for gross misconduct with immediate effect.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing conducted by Mr Buckwell; adjourned for further enquiries.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Buckwell sent letter rejecting the appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the manager for gross misconduct involving sexual language and behaviour, and whether he was entitled to annual bonuses for the period before his dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim, finding that Marquis Motorhomes Ltd. had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and followed a fair procedure. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
However, the tribunal upheld the claim for unpaid bonuses. The manager was awarded:
- £19,402.05 in total for two annual bonuses for the 2020-21 financial year.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct if they have a genuine belief based on a reasonable investigation, even if the employee denies the allegations.
- Employees may still be entitled to contractual bonuses earned before dismissal, even if dismissed for gross misconduct.
- Representing yourself at tribunal can be challenging; the tribunal noted the claimant struggled to focus on the legal test rather than his own view of events.
This case shows how tribunals separate the fairness of a dismissal from other contractual claims. The branch manager was dismissed after three female colleagues complained about sexual comments and unwanted physical contact. The employer investigated, held a disciplinary hearing, and concluded he had committed gross misconduct.
The tribunal did not decide whether the misconduct actually happened. Instead, it asked whether the employer genuinely believed it and acted reasonably. The judge found that the employer's investigation was thorough, the procedure was fair, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.
But the manager succeeded on a separate claim for unpaid bonuses. His contract entitled him to annual bonuses for the 2020-21 financial year, which ended just before his dismissal. The tribunal held that the bonuses were earned during his employment and were not forfeited by the dismissal. Marquis Motorhomes Ltd. was ordered to pay £19,402.05.
What the employer did right
The employer acted promptly: complaints were received on 23 August, the manager was suspended on 31 August, and a disciplinary hearing was held on 7-8 September. Witness statements were provided, the manager was given an opportunity to respond, and an appeal was heard. This process met the standards of a reasonable employer.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal noted no significant failings in the process. However, employers should ensure that any bonus scheme terms are clear about forfeiture on dismissal for gross misconduct. Here, the contract did not exclude the bonus, so it remained payable.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a fair dismissal does not automatically cancel other contractual rights. For employers, it highlights the importance of having clear bonus terms and following a thorough disciplinary process. Even when the misconduct is serious, procedural fairness is key to defending an unfair dismissal claim.
Similar cases
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Project manager dismissed for planting listening device: tribunal upholds dismissal
A project manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after a listening device was found in his boss's office, with wires leading to his desk. The Liverpool tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Expense claim misrepresentation led to fair dismissal for financial services analyst
A senior analyst with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after submitting an expense claim that included his partner's meals and then denying it during investigation. The tribunal upheld Citibank's decision.
Ward manager unfairly dismissed after employer mistook cannabis metabolite for cannabis
A 40-year nursing veteran was unfairly dismissed by Priory Healthcare after the employer mistakenly believed a urine test showed she was under the influence of cannabis at work. The tribunal found the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.