Dismissed for gross misconduct after flawed investigation: a 21-year career ended by hearsay
A Progression Manager with 21 years' service was unfairly dismissed after an investigation that relied on hearsay and leading questions. The employment tribunal found the process fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #inadequate-investigation
- #hearsay-evidence
- #office-banter
- #flawed-disciplinary-process
- #appeal-failure
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Progression Manager from 29 March 1999 until dismissal on 29 June 2020.
- Allegations of gross misconduct arose from an exit interview with a former subordinate, Bethany Keeley, on 12 March 2020.
- The allegations were based on hearsay and lacked a single comprehensive record; no attempt was made to clarify them with Ms Keeley.
- The respondent's investigation was inadequate, with perfunctory interviews and leading questions that did not corroborate the allegations.
- The disciplinary hearing treated the seriousness of the allegations as evidence, and the appeal failed to remedy the defects.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses and was unfair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a Progression Manager.
-
Exit interview with Bethany Keeley
Ms Keeley made allegations of misconduct against the claimant during an exit interview conducted by HR employee Emma Breuilly.
-
Invitation to meeting
Claimant's manager Deborah Hughes invited the claimant to a meeting to discuss Ms Keeley's exit interview.
-
Allegations put to claimant
Ms Hughes confronted the claimant with the allegations, which were based on hearsay and lacked clarity.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held with Mr Gordon Innes and Helen Judson; the claimant denied the allegations.
-
Dismissal
Mr Innes found four allegations proved and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal hearing was conducted by Mr Adam Daniels; the claimant provided a detailed statement.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Daniels upheld the dismissal, citing a 'pattern of behaviour', but the tribunal later found the appeal inadequate.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation
Early conciliation took place.
-
Claim form received
The claimant submitted her claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the employee's misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
- The investigation was inadequate: allegations were based on hearsay from an exit interview, with no attempt to clarify them with the complainant.
- The disciplinary hearing treated the seriousness of the allegations as evidence, and the appeal failed to correct the flaws.
- The dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and therefore unfair.
- No compensation figures were provided in the judgment; a separate remedy hearing is to be listed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a thorough investigation before dismissing for gross misconduct, including seeking corroboration and clarifying hearsay evidence.
- Length of service is a key factor in assessing whether the employer's response was reasonable; long-serving employees are entitled to a more rigorous process.
- Appeals must genuinely review the fairness of the original decision, not merely rubber-stamp it.
- Leading questions and perfunctory interviews are red flags that can render an investigation unreasonable.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers take when they rely on a single, uncorroborated source for serious misconduct allegations. The Progression Manager had worked for Countryside Properties for 21 years, yet the investigation into complaints from a former subordinate was based almost entirely on hearsay. The exit interview notes were inconsistent, and no effort was made to go back to the complainant for clarification. The investigating manager used leading questions and failed to test the evidence properly.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more thorough investigation. That would have meant interviewing the complainant again to clarify the allegations, seeking independent witnesses, and ensuring the disciplinary panel did not treat the seriousness of the charges as proof of guilt. The appeal also fell short: instead of scrutinising the process, it simply upheld the dismissal citing a 'pattern of behaviour' that was not properly established.
Why the result matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that even long-serving staff can be dismissed unfairly if the process is flawed. For employers, it reinforces that a reasonable investigation is not optional — it is a legal requirement. The tribunal's criticism of the 'perfunctory' interviews and reliance on hearsay sends a clear message: cutting corners in a disciplinary process will likely lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, regardless of the gravity of the allegations.
Similar cases
Security guard dismissed after alleged theft: no protected disclosure
A security guard with only weeks of service was dismissed after being accused of taking items without permission. The tribunal rejected his claims of protected disclosure detriment and notice pay, but awarded £627 for missing written particulars.
Relief pharmacist awarded £45,000 after racial harassment and flawed grievance
A relief pharmacist with 11 years' service was subjected to racial harassment by colleagues and then constructively dismissed after his employer mishandled his grievance. The tribunal awarded £45,263.11.
Support worker dismissed over raised voice: unfair dismissal due to flawed investigation
A support worker who raised her voice at a vulnerable adult was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on undisclosed witness statements. The tribunal awarded £12,108, reduced by a third for her own conduct.
Maths teacher dismissed for gross misconduct: unfair dismissal claim fails due to short service
A maths teacher with less than two years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct. The employment tribunal dismissed his unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction and found no race discrimination.