Dismissed for providing a reference: flawed investigation leads to unfair dismissal win
A tribunal found that a care organisation unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee for gross misconduct after a flawed investigation into a reference she provided. The employee was awarded £13,578.56.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #flawed-investigation
- #pre-determined-guilt
- #reference-dispute
- #small-employer
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 4 April 2005 to 30 October 2019, with 14 years of unblemished service.
- She was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after providing a reference for a former employee without permission and allegedly lying about it.
- The tribunal found the investigation was flawed: evidence was not shared, decision-makers were not impartial, and the accuser influenced the process.
- The respondent could not point to any inaccuracies in the reference or a written policy requiring escalation.
- The claimant was not shown the reference during the investigation and was grieving her mother's recent death.
- The appeal was heard by the husband of the accuser, who admitted he had already decided the outcome.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began working for Hafod Care Organisation Limited in a general business administration role with some HR functions.
-
Reference provided
Claimant completed a proforma reference for former employee GM, describing herself as 'Human Resources' and circling positive character traits.
-
Claimant's mother died
Claimant's mother passed away; she attended work the next day.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended by Rachel Wood for allegedly giving a fraudulent reference, but no further details were provided.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting with Rachel Wood; she was asked about the reference but not shown it, and denied being asked previously.
-
Interview of Mrs Perry
Rachel Wood interviewed Mrs Perry, who claimed she had asked the claimant about the reference on multiple occasions and was denied.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing with three allegations: providing a reference without permission, providing inaccurate details, and repeatedly lying.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Buckley upheld all three allegations and summarily dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Perry heard the appeal; he had already discussed the case with his wife and Mrs Buckley and upheld the dismissal.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Hindmarch found the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal well-founded.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,671.66 and a compensatory award of £8,906.90, including an uplift for failure to provide written particulars.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's dismissal of the employee for gross misconduct was fair, considering whether there was a reasonable investigation, a genuine belief in guilt, and a reasonable sanction.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The key reasons were:
- The investigation was flawed: the employee was not shown the reference, the accuser influenced the process, and the appeal was heard by the accuser's husband who had already decided the outcome.
- The employer could not point to any inaccuracies in the reference or a written policy requiring escalation.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £4,671.66
- Compensatory award: £8,906.90
- Total: £13,578.56
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure investigations are impartial and that evidence is shared with the employee before any decision is made.
- Avoid having a family member of the accuser hear an appeal, as this can undermine the appearance of fairness.
- Long-serving employees with unblemished records deserve a thorough and fair process before dismissal for misconduct.
- Employers should have clear policies on providing references and ensure employees are aware of them.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of a fair investigation before dismissing an employee for gross misconduct. The employee, who had 14 years of unblemished service, was summarily dismissed after providing a reference for a former colleague without permission. The tribunal found that the investigation was deeply flawed: the employee was not shown the reference she had allegedly provided, the accuser (the owner's wife) influenced the process, and the appeal was heard by the owner himself, who admitted he had already decided the outcome.
What the employer could have done differently
Hafod Care Organisation could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more thorough and impartial investigation. Sharing the reference with the employee during the investigation would have allowed her to respond properly. Ensuring that the decision-maker and appeal officer were independent of the accuser would have demonstrated fairness. The employer also failed to provide written particulars of employment, which led to an uplift in compensation.
Why the result matters
This case serves as a reminder that even small employers must follow basic principles of fairness when dismissing employees. The tribunal's award of over £13,500 reflects the seriousness of the procedural failings. For employees in similar situations, it shows that a flawed investigation can render a dismissal unfair, regardless of the alleged misconduct.
Similar cases
Course leader dismissed after 23 years: flawed investigation leads to £53k award
A tribunal found that New City College unfairly dismissed a course leader with 23 years' service after a flawed investigation into misconduct during the pandemic. The claimant was awarded £53,256.95 including a 20% ACAS uplift.
Office manager dismissed after flawed investigation: loss of trust and confidence
A Reading tribunal found that Bartco Ltd unfairly dismissed its office manager after a flawed investigation and pre-determined decision, awarding £11,932.17.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.