CEO dismissed for bullying after independent investigation: dismissal upheld
A tribunal has rejected an unfair dismissal claim brought by a CEO with 13 years' service, finding that the employer acted reasonably in dismissing for gross misconduct following an independent investigation into bullying allegations.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #bullying-and-harassment
- #insubordination
- #covid-19-pandemic
- #independent-hr-investigation
- #appeal-upheld
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as CEO from 10 July 2007 to 14 July 2020.
- Two employees raised grievances against the claimant for bullying and harassment in June 2020.
- The claimant was suspended on 22 June 2020 pending investigation.
- An independent HR consultant found the allegations proven and recommended summary dismissal.
- The Board of Trustees accepted the recommendation and dismissed the claimant on 14 July 2020.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was rejected by another independent HR consultant.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as CEO of Integration Support Services.
-
Office closed due to COVID-19
Respondent's office closed due to the pandemic; reopened on 16 April 2020.
-
Staff meeting
Staff meeting held via Zoom; claimant raised concerns about workload and furlough.
-
Staff meeting with criticism
Claimant criticised employee Jennifer Khoury's performance during a staff meeting.
-
First grievance raised
Jennifer Khoury emailed trustees with a grievance against the claimant.
-
Second grievance raised
Joanna Hewelt submitted a formal grievance against the claimant.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation into grievances.
-
Office incident
Claimant attended office during suspension, leading to police involvement.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Independent HR consultant Anna Stobart chaired a combined grievance and disciplinary hearing.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal chaired by independent HR consultant Leonie Goodman.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal rejected; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the CEO for gross misconduct based on bullying and harassment allegations, including whether there were reasonable grounds for belief, a fair investigation, and whether dismissal was a reasonable response.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the employer genuinely believed the CEO had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief based on an independent investigation, and followed a fair procedure. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a senior employee in a leadership role.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure investigations into misconduct are thorough and independent, especially when allegations involve senior staff.
- A fair procedure includes giving the employee a chance to respond to allegations and considering their representations before deciding on dismissal.
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the employer follows a reasonable process and has genuine belief in the misconduct.
This case shows how a well-conducted independent investigation can protect an employer's decision to dismiss a senior employee for gross misconduct. The CEO, who had worked for the organisation for 13 years, was dismissed after two employees raised grievances alleging bullying and harassment. The employer suspended the CEO and appointed an independent HR consultant to investigate. The investigation found the allegations proven, and the Board of Trustees accepted the recommendation to dismiss.
What the employer did right
The employer took several steps that the tribunal considered reasonable: they suspended the CEO pending investigation, used an independent investigator, held a disciplinary hearing where the CEO could respond, and provided a right of appeal with a different independent HR consultant. The tribunal noted that the investigation was thorough and the decision to dismiss was based on the investigator's findings.
What the CEO argued
The CEO claimed the dismissal was unfair, arguing that the employer had not considered her long service or the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workplace dynamics. However, the tribunal found that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct and acted within the range of reasonable responses. The CEO's attendance at the office during suspension, which led to police involvement, also undermined her position.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that even senior employees with long service can be fairly dismissed for misconduct if the employer follows a proper process. For employees considering similar claims, the key is whether the employer acted reasonably, not whether the employee disagrees with the outcome. Employers should note that independent investigations and fair procedures are critical to defending dismissal decisions.
Similar cases
Long-serving centre manager dismissed for gross misconduct: insubordination and breach of confidentiality
A part-time centre manager with 40 years of voluntary service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to follow management instructions and breaching confidentiality. The tribunal upheld the dismissal.
Decorator dismissed after HSE complaint: employer's belief was reasonable despite denial
A decorator with three years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after an anonymous HSE complaint alleged he urinated behind a customer's shed. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer's investigation and belief were reasonable.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.