Club secretary dismissed for sexual harassment after 20 years: fair dismissal upheld
A club secretary with 20 years' service was fairly dismissed for misconduct after two female employees alleged sexual touching. The tribunal found the golf club's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #misconduct
- #sexual-harassment
- #anonymous-complainants
- #cctv-evidence
- #band-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as club secretary from 25 September 2000 until 15 October 2021.
- On 22 September 2021, the claimant allegedly patted Employee A on the bottom.
- On 24 September 2021, the claimant allegedly touched Employee B in the groin area with a wriggle of his fingers.
- The respondent investigated and held a disciplinary hearing, resulting in dismissal for misconduct.
- The claimant appealed, but the dismissal was upheld.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct and acted within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as club secretary.
-
Alleged incident with Employee A
Claimant allegedly patted Employee A on the bottom.
-
Alleged incident with Employee B
Claimant allegedly touched Employee B in the groin area with a wriggle of his fingers.
-
Interviews with complainants
Mr Frith interviewed Employees A and B about the incidents.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Claimant's statements
Claimant provided written statements denying the allegations and requesting CCTV footage.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant was interviewed by Mr Wilson and Ms Nicholls, accompanied by Mr Gunn.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing regarding the allegations.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing conducted by Mr Horstead and Ms Stout; claimant attended with Mr Gunn.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for misconduct relating to Employee B.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal panel upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct (sexual harassment) was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses in its investigation and decision-making.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding the dismissal fair.
- The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on interviews with the complainants and the claimant.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, despite the claimant's criticisms about anonymity, lack of CCTV, and not hearing directly from the complainants.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on anonymous complaints if there is a genuine reason for anonymity and the employee is still given enough detail to respond.
- A long-serving employee does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the misconduct is serious and the process is reasonable.
- Failure to provide CCTV evidence before a disciplinary hearing may not be fatal if the employer has other credible evidence and the employee had an opportunity to comment.
- The band of reasonable responses test gives employers leeway; tribunals will not substitute their own judgment if the employer's decision was within that band.
What this case shows
This case illustrates that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for misconduct if the employer carries out a reasonable investigation and follows a fair process. The club secretary, who had worked for the golf club for 20 years, was dismissed after two female employees alleged sexual touching. Despite the claimant's denials and criticisms of the process, the tribunal found the employer acted within the band of reasonable responses.
What the employer did right
The employer conducted interviews with the complainants and the claimant, held a disciplinary hearing, and allowed the claimant to be accompanied. The decision to dismiss was based on a genuine belief in the misconduct, and the appeal panel upheld the decision. The tribunal noted that the employer had a legitimate reason to keep the complainants anonymous to protect them from potential repercussions, and that the claimant was given sufficient detail to respond to the allegations.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees who face allegations of sexual harassment should be aware that tribunals give employers a degree of flexibility in how they investigate and decide on disciplinary action. The key is whether the employer's process was within the range of reasonable responses, not whether it was perfect. This case also highlights that anonymity for complainants can be justified in certain circumstances, and that a failure to provide CCTV evidence may not automatically make a dismissal unfair if other evidence supports the decision.
Similar cases
Assistant manager dismissed for using physical force on customers: tribunal upholds John Lewis decision
An assistant team manager with eight years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him pushing, grabbing and kicking members of the public. The tribunal rejected his claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Warehouse picker dismissed for lifting trolley in horseplay: dismissal fair despite long service
A warehouse picker with nine years' service was fairly dismissed for lifting an empty trolley to chest height as an act of horseplay. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision, finding it within the band of reasonable responses.
Senior salesperson dismissed for 'race card' comment and conduct towards child customers
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a senior salesperson with 9 years' service after he made a 'race card' comment to street wardens and acted intimidatorily towards two schoolboys in the store.
Milk theft on CCTV: dismissal upheld as fair despite inconsistent explanations
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a milk delivery driver who was caught on CCTV removing milk from customers' doorsteps. The respondent's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.