Leicester City Council v Chapman
Welcome back to your weekly case law update – the perfect light reading to get you through that final furlong to the weekend.
If you have already booked on to our seminar then please feel free to skip the next paragraph. If you have not please ask yourself the following:
- Is your organisation prepared for current challenges facing HR and Employment Law?
- Do you enjoy a free lunch?
- Would you like to be entered into a prize draw for a HR Audit?
If the answer to any of the above is yes then please visit our signup page to book your place. In addition to the sessions listed on the page we will be hosting a Q&A to answer attendees own HR queries. If you would like to raise a specific query then please email emma@pjhlaw.co.uk.
Last week we looked at sex discrimination and toilet facilities, specifically how it is not acceptable to expect female staff to use male toilets! This week we are looking at harassment and unfair dismissal.
Leicester City Council v Chapman
Mr Chapman, the Claimant, was employed by Leicester City Council, the Respondent, at one of their leisure centres and had ten years’ service. The leisure centre the Claimant worked at had a gym with its own dedicated staff. One of the gym staff reported the Claimant for incidents of aggressive conduct and unwanted physical conduct. This included shouting, grabbing, chasing and pushing the colleagues face to his groin area.
The Respondent investigated the incidents and reviewed CCTV which showed the Claimant chasing and grabbing female colleagues. At investigation the Claimant initially stated he could not recall the incidents but upon being shown the CCTV evidence described them as banter. The Respondents investigation took several months and whilst interviewing many witnesses present on the day of the incidents, they failed to interview two witnesses to the event.
The Claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct. The primary reason for dismissal was the allegation of pushing a female colleague’s head towards his groin which was not clear on the CCTV. Despite this the CCTV footage is heavily referenced in the disciplinary outcome. The Claimant commenced claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair as the Respondent could not have formed a reasonable belief of misconduct from the silent CCTV footage. The decision to dismiss therefore fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The Respondent appealed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that the ET had substituted its own view and not considered the oral evidence of the witnesses and other documentary evidence obtained by the Respondent during the investigation. Whilst the CCTV was indeed key evidence it was not the only evidence that led to the Respondent forming a belief of the Claimant committing misconduct. The claim was remitted back to a fresh tribunal to be redecided.
Takeaway Points
Whilst there is no question this week, there are several takeaway points. Firstly, it is a reminder that CCTV evidence alone is not always enough to dismiss someone, particularly if the footage is blurry or silent. The Respondent in this case rightly collected evidence from witnesses but should have also sought to interview all witnesses to reduce the risk of the dismissal being held as unfair.
It’s also another case that highlights the importance of harassment training. Whether you are Richard Keys or the Claimant in this case, the banter defence is seldom a good defence to harassment allegations. Employers should be mindful to keep on top of their harassment training as confirmation bias means many harassment perpetrators fall into the confirmation bias trap of thinking everyone else thinks pushing someone’s head towards your crouch is as funny as they do.
