In the recent case of Dronsfield v University of Reading, the EAT has given further guidance on the role of investigation reports and how misconduct should be tested when determining whether a dismissal for gross misconduct is unfair.
Facts
Dr Dronsfield was an Associate Professor in Fine Art at the University of Reading. He was disciplined and dismissed for failing to disclose a relationship he had with one of his students.
He was interviewed as part of the disciplinary process and once the investigation was concluded, drafts of the reports were reviewed and amended by the University’s in house lawyer and HR department. As part of this process a number of comments that favoured Dr Dronsfield’s position were deleted by HR and did not appear in the final version of the investigation report.
Under University regulations, academic staff could only be dismissed for specified reasons, which included “conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or employment”. The disciplinary panel recommended dismissal and Dr Dronsfield’s appeal was unsuccessful.
Dr Dronsfield’s claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.
EAT Decision
In upholding the appeal, the EAT held that when considering the fairness of a dismissal a tribunal is required to review every aspect of the process against the standards of a reasonable employer. The University should therefore have applied the wording of its regulations and considered whether Dr Dronsfield’s actions amounted to a reason for dismissal under those regulations. The words should not have been given a narrow interpretation or merely converted into the more modern phrase of “gross misconduct”.
The EAT also noted that significant changes had been made to the investigation report which removed relevant views and findings regarding Dr Dronsfield’s actions and intentions that went in his favour. The Tribunal had not asked the investigating officer whether he, as opposed to HR, had a genuine belief that Dr Dronsfield’s conduct was immoral, scandalous or vexatious.
Comment
This is an unusual situation. Most employers will not have statutory regulations governing the dismissal of their employees. However, it is clear that employers must be able to show they have considered their own disciplinary policy as well as general principles when effecting a dismissal, in particular, where an employer has a contractual disciplinary policy which sets out the parameters for summary dismissal.
The EAT’s comments and views regarding the involvement of HR in an investigation process should be heeded. Individuals undertaking an investigation need to be clear about what is expected of them. Further, any report or finding produced by them must be a product of their own investigations. If an HR officer has had undue influence or involvement that is likely to jeopardise the fairness of the dismissal process.
Dronsfield v University of Reading UKEAT/0200/15
