HR Manager dismissed for gross misconduct: tribunal upholds council's decision
An HR Manager with 8 years' service was summarily dismissed for breaching confidentiality. The tribunal found the council's investigation and disciplinary process were fair and the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #breach-of-confidence
- #hr-manager
- #disability-discrimination
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #equal-pay
- #victimisation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an HR Manager from 29 November 2010 until summary dismissal on 14 June 2019.
- The claimant was suspended on 19 April 2018 pending investigation into allegations of gross misconduct including breaching confidentiality.
- An independent investigation by Mr Johnson involved 24 interviews and produced a 294-page report.
- The disciplinary hearing was conducted by Mr Hammons, who upheld several allegations of gross misconduct.
- The claimant appealed the dismissal, but the appeal panel upheld the decision.
- The tribunal found the respondent had knowledge of the claimant's disability (Cyclothymia/Bi-Polar) from May 2018.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as HR Manager with East Northamptonshire Council.
-
Diagnosis of Cyclothymia
Claimant was diagnosed with Cyclothymia by Dr Vilanova.
-
First alleged disclosure
Claimant emailed Chief Executive David Oliver regarding identity checks for temporary election workers.
-
Equal pay complaint email
Claimant emailed Mr Hammons raising a personal equal pay complaint.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation into gross misconduct allegations.
-
Disability disclosed
Claimant informed Mr Hammons of her mental health disability and requested adjustments.
-
Investigation report received
Mr Johnson's disciplinary investigation report was completed.
-
Disciplinary hearing commenced
Disciplinary hearing began with reasonable adjustments in place.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal panel upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed (ordinary and automatic for whistleblowing), whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for disability, whether the claimant was victimised for a protected act, and whether she was entitled to equal pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant, including ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and equal pay.
The key reason was that the council had carried out a thorough investigation involving 24 interviews and a 294-page report, and the disciplinary hearing was conducted with reasonable adjustments in place. The tribunal found that the council genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct and that dismissal was a reasonable response.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A thorough and independent investigation can significantly strengthen an employer's defence against unfair dismissal claims.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary processes are conducted fairly, including considering reasonable adjustments for disabled employees.
- Employees should be aware that raising grievances or equal pay complaints does not automatically protect them from dismissal if there is separate evidence of misconduct.
- The length of the investigation (here, over a year) may be justified if the allegations are complex and require extensive evidence gathering.
This case shows that even a long-serving employee with a disability can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the employer follows a proper process. The claimant, an HR Manager employed for eight years, was suspended after allegations of breaching confidentiality. The council commissioned an independent investigation that involved 24 interviews and produced a detailed report.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal examined whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (conduct) and whether the employer acted reasonably. It found that the council had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. The disciplinary hearing was conducted with adjustments for the claimant's disability, including allowing breaks and providing written materials in advance.
Why the claims failed
The claimant argued that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments. However, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the misconduct, not any disclosures. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the council had made appropriate adjustments once it had knowledge of the disability.
What this means for similar cases
This case reinforces that employers can defend dismissal claims by demonstrating a thorough and fair process. For employees, it highlights that raising grievances or equal pay complaints does not provide immunity from disciplinary action based on separate misconduct. The outcome also shows that tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer's actions were within the 'range of reasonable responses' – a key test in unfair dismissal law.
Similar cases
Driving examiner dismissed for photographing personal data: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
A driving examiner with 14 years' service was dismissed for taking photos of a colleague's personal data. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected all claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.
Field assessor with hypertension wins victimisation claim after raising COVID safety concerns
A field assessor with 10 years' service who raised concerns about returning to work during the pandemic has won a victimisation claim against Vibrant Energy Matters Ltd. The tribunal found the company failed to properly handle her second grievance.