Site coordinator dismissed for sexual banter: tribunal upholds council's decision
A school site coordinator with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making sexually explicit comments to female colleagues. The tribunal also awarded £10,000 costs against him.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sexual-harassment
- #gross-misconduct
- #banter-culture
- #independent-investigation
- #costs-awarded
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as site coordinator at Parkside primary school from 18 February 2008.
- Between 13 and 28 April 2021, four female staff complained of sexual harassment by the claimant.
- The claimant admitted making several comments, including asking about a 'designer vagina' and using terms like 'sexpot' and 'vinegar tits'.
- The respondent conducted an investigation and disciplinary hearing, finding six of seven allegations proved, leading to summary dismissal.
- The claimant's appeal was unsuccessful after a full re-hearing.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair and awarded costs of £10,000 against the claimant.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as site coordinator at Parkside primary school.
-
Alleged incident 1
Claimant asked a colleague if she would go in the cupboard for a quickie.
-
First complaint
Head teacher SOB met with complainant SC regarding the claimant's comment about a 'designer vagina'.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended from work.
-
Investigation interview
Investigating officer MK interviewed the claimant about the allegations.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A panel of three governors heard the case; claimant was represented by his union.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after six allegations were found proved.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel conducted a full re-hearing and upheld the dismissal.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim for unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Judgment
Tribunal dismissed the claim and ordered claimant to pay £10,000 costs.
The legal issue
Whether the employer had a genuine and reasonable belief in the claimant's misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses for gross misconduct involving sexual harassment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that East Riding of Yorkshire Council acted reasonably throughout.
The key reasons were:
- The council had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on multiple complaints from female staff.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were thorough, including a full re-hearing on appeal.
- Dismissal was a proportionate response to gross misconduct involving sexual harassment.
The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £10,000 for unreasonable conduct in bringing the claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- Sexual banter in the workplace can amount to gross misconduct, even if the employee has long service and no prior disciplinary record.
- Employers should ensure they carry out a reasonable investigation and follow a fair procedure, including offering an appeal with a full re-hearing if appropriate.
- Claimants who pursue weak claims risk a costs order against them, especially if they are unreasonable in their conduct of the proceedings.
- A tribunal will not substitute its own view for that of the employer, as long as the employer's decision falls within the band of reasonable responses.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for conduct that is considered gross misconduct. The claimant, a site coordinator at a primary school, had worked for the council for 13 years without any prior disciplinary issues. However, a series of sexually explicit comments made to female colleagues over a short period led to his summary dismissal. The tribunal found that the council's investigation and disciplinary process were thorough and fair, and that dismissal was a proportionate response.
What the council did right
The council acted promptly after receiving complaints, suspending the claimant and appointing an independent investigating officer. The disciplinary hearing was conducted by a panel of governors, and the claimant was represented by his union. On appeal, a different panel conducted a full re-hearing, which is good practice. The tribunal noted that the council had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on the claimant's own admissions, and that the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances.
Why this result matters
This case reinforces that employers can take a firm stance against sexual harassment, even in cases where the employee has long service. It also highlights the risks for claimants who bring weak claims: the tribunal awarded costs of £10,000 against the claimant for his unreasonable conduct in pursuing the claim. The message is clear: tribunals will not tolerate sexual harassment, and employees who bring unmeritorious claims may face financial penalties.
Similar cases
Installation engineer dismissed for fuelling personal car with company credit card
An installation engineer who used his employer's credit card to fuel his personal car on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal has ruled.
Warehouse operative dismissed for sexual touching: employer's belief reasonable
A warehouse operative with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for grabbing colleagues' private areas. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable grounds for its belief despite the operative's conspiracy claims.
Electrician dismissed for switching on wet distribution board: conduct dismissal upheld
An electrician who switched on a water-damaged electrical board, creating a serious safety risk, was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claim that the dismissal was due to his trade union membership.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.