Dismissed over social media grooming video: flawed process led to unfair dismissal
A stores assistant who was dismissed after a video accused him of grooming an underage girl has won his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was biased and procedurally unfair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #social-media-video
- #grooming-allegations
- #police-investigation
- #no-prosecution
- #acas-code-uplift
- #procedural-unfairness
- #closed-mind
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed after a video appeared on social media accusing him of grooming an underage girl.
- The police investigated the allegations and the CPS decided not to prosecute.
- The respondent claimed dismissal was for some other substantial reason: breakdown in working relationships and reputational risk.
- The tribunal found the real reason was the claimant's perceived misconduct and failure to disclose the video.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were fundamentally flawed, with the decision-makers showing bias and closed minds.
- The claimant was not under any contractual obligation to disclose the 2016 incident.
Timeline
-
Video recorded
The claimant was confronted by two men who accused him of grooming a 14-year-old girl. The video was posted online.
-
Employment started
The claimant commenced employment with Gypsumtools Ltd as a Stores Assistant/Taping Tool Repair Technician.
-
Meeting and decision to dismiss
The claimant was called to a meeting without notice. He was shown the video and told trust was broken. He was given the option to resign or be dismissed.
-
Grievance submitted
The claimant submitted a grievance complaining about the conduct of the 11 January meeting.
-
Grievance meeting
The claimant met with Ms Horsley to discuss his grievance. Ms Horsley had chaired the original meeting and was investigating her own conduct.
-
Grievance outcome
Ms Horsley dismissed the grievance and confirmed the decision to dismiss the claimant for some other substantial reason.
-
Appeal meeting
The claimant met with Mr Khan for the grievance appeal. Mr Khan showed bias and upheld the dismissal.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Khan confirmed the dismissal was upheld.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim of unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Gypsumtools Ltd had a fair reason for dismissing the employee (some other substantial reason) and whether it acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient, including following a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the employee was unfairly dismissed. The real reason for dismissal was the employer's perception of misconduct and failure to disclose the video, not a genuine breakdown in relationships or reputational risk.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,067.31
- Compensatory award: £20,382.62 (including £500 for loss of statutory rights and a 25% ACAS uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice)
- Total: £21,449.93
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a fair and impartial investigation before dismissing an employee, even when allegations are serious.
- Decision-makers should not be involved in investigating their own conduct or show bias during the process.
- A failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
- Employees are not obliged to disclose incidents from before their employment unless there is a contractual requirement.
When a social media video leads to dismissal
A video from 2016, in which two men accused a stores assistant of grooming a 14-year-old girl, resurfaced in 2021 and cost him his job at Gypsumtools Ltd. The police and CPS had decided not to prosecute, but the employer dismissed him anyway, citing a breakdown in working relationships and reputational risk.
A fundamentally flawed process
The tribunal found that the employer's investigation and disciplinary process were riddled with problems. The employee was called to a meeting without notice, shown the video, and told trust was broken. He was given the option to resign or be dismissed. When he submitted a grievance, it was investigated by the same person who chaired the original meeting – Ms Horsley, who effectively investigated her own conduct. The appeal was handled by Mr Khan, who showed clear bias and upheld the dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
A fair process would have involved a proper investigation, allowing the employee to explain the circumstances, and considering the fact that the CPS had decided not to prosecute. The employer should have ensured decision-makers were impartial and not involved in earlier stages of the process. Following the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures is essential.
Why this matters
This case shows that even when allegations are serious and public, employers cannot bypass fair procedures. The tribunal's decision to apply a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code sends a clear message: procedural fairness is not optional. For employees, it demonstrates that a dismissal can be challenged if the process is biased or unfair, regardless of the nature of the allegations.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Depot manager dismissed over four-year-old theft allegation without a hearing
A depot manager with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a stale theft allegation and denied him the chance to respond. The tribunal awarded £22,000.
Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed for using word 'spastic' in historical context
A Regional Sales Manager with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after using the word 'spastic' in a conversation about historical language. The tribunal awarded £7,710.31 for procedural failures including a pre-signed dismissal letter.
Dismissed for mishearing an instruction: a conduct case that failed to consider the possibility of misunderstanding
A purge and relight engineer with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a dispute over whether he was told to return to a work site. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the possibility of miscommunication and did not interview a key witness.