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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a caretaker from 23 May 2016 to 22 December 2021.
- He received a verbal warning on 8 November 2021 for conduct towards hirers.
- He received a written warning on 12 November 2021 for similar matters.
- The disciplinary panel included Councillor Florence Nash, whose husband was a complainant.
- The appeal panel included the husband of a complainant and witness.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 22 December 2021.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began working as a caretaker for Fordbridge Town Council.
-
Incident with hirers
Claimant handed a blue broom to Mr and Mrs Kausar and told them to clean up; he accepted £10 and leftover food.
-
Verbal warning issued
Claimant was given a verbal warning for conduct towards hirers and accepting money.
-
Written warning issued
Claimant received a written warning for similar matters after a disciplinary meeting.
-
Alleged inappropriate comments
Claimant made joking remarks about Councillor Alan Nash, which were reported as threatening.
-
Appeal against warnings
Appeal hearing for the warnings; claimant was told appeal was limited to procedural issues.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
-
New employment started
Claimant started a new job, ending his period of unemployment.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal meeting became ill-tempered and was closed; appeal was rejected.
-
Appeal rejection letter
Claimant received letter stating appeal was rejected due to his conduct at the appeal meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Fordbridge Town Council acted reasonably in dismissing the caretaker for gross misconduct, considering whether the investigation was fair, the decision was within the range of reasonable responses, and the process was free from bias.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal.
- The disciplinary panel included Councillor Florence Nash, whose husband was a complainant, and the appeal panel included the husband of a complainant and witness, creating a real risk of bias.
- The process was rushed: the claimant received a verbal warning on 8 November 2021, a written warning on 12 November, and was dismissed on 22 December, with an appeal rejected on 1 February 2022.
- Compensation was reduced by 50% under Polkey (chance of fair dismissal) and 25% for contributory conduct, but increased by 15% for failure to follow the ACAS Code.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £592.88 (reduced by 50% from £1,185.75)
- Compensatory award: £467.53 (loss of earnings £331.16 plus loss of statutory rights £136.37, reduced by 50% Polkey and 25% contributory, then increased by 15% ACAS uplift)
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals scrutinise panel composition closely: including anyone with a personal connection to a complainant can render a dismissal unfair.
- Employers should follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures; failure to do so can increase compensation by up to 25%.
- Even if an employee's conduct contributed to dismissal, procedural flaws can still lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, though compensation may be reduced.
- Rushing through multiple warnings and a dismissal within weeks can indicate a lack of reasonable investigation and a predetermined outcome.
A flawed process from the start
This case shows how a council's failure to ensure impartiality in its disciplinary panels can unravel an otherwise defensible dismissal. The caretaker, who had worked 16 hours a week for five years, was dismissed after a series of warnings and an investigation into alleged misconduct. However, the tribunal found that the process was tainted by bias: the disciplinary panel included Councillor Florence Nash, whose husband was one of the complainants, and the appeal panel included the husband of another complainant and witness.
What could have been done differently
Fordbridge Town Council could have avoided this outcome by ensuring that no panel member had any personal connection to the case. A simple check of relationships before appointing the panel would have sufficed. Additionally, the council rushed through the disciplinary process: the claimant received a verbal warning on 8 November 2021, a written warning on 12 November, and was dismissed on 22 December. This speed, combined with the biased panels, suggested a predetermined outcome rather than a fair investigation.
Why the result matters
The tribunal's decision reinforces that procedural fairness is not just a formality—it is a legal requirement. Even though the claimant's conduct contributed to his dismissal (leading to a 25% reduction in compensation), the council's failure to follow a fair process meant the dismissal was automatically unfair. The compensation was also reduced by 50% to reflect the chance that a fair process might still have led to dismissal, but the council's failure to follow the ACAS Code added a 15% uplift. For employees, this case highlights that bias in disciplinary panels can be a powerful ground for an unfair dismissal claim, even when the employee's own behaviour is questionable.
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.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
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.