Background

In Northbay Pelagic Ltd v Anderson UKEATS/0029/1 three companies owned shares in Northbay, which was managed by a Board of 5 directors supported by a management team. The company owning the minority stake in Northbay was owned by the Anderson family. Mr Colam was the person who controlled the other two company shareholders.

Mr Colam and the Anderson family fell out. The Claimant, Colin Anderson and his father (Chris Anderson) were suspended and later dismissed, as was a third member of their family.

Seven allegations were put to Colin Anderson; five were upheld, including one of him setting up covert surveillance to see who may have entered his office.

Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal upheld the claim and Colin Anderson was found to have been unfairly dismissed. This was partly in view of the process followed by Northbay. The Employment Judge found;

“…. I was concerned about the motivation for bringing the various allegations, the categorisation of most as “gross misconduct” when clearly they were not, and the extent to which Mr Colam may have been able to influence the decisions which were taken.” (our emphasis).

The Tribunal expressed “concern” that Ms Flattery (one of three HR consultants appointed to deal with the allegations), who heard Colin Anderson’s appeal, was unaware that Northbay had agreed to be bound by her decision.

Her evidence was that she thought she was making a recommendation. The Tribunal said this caused “concerns about the robustness of the disciplinary procedure and supported the claimant’s contention that the decision to dismiss was “pre-determined”.”

Summary

This case shows that a lack of clarity when instructing independent workplace investigators can undermine the fairness of the overall disciplinary process. 

Being clear about who is involved in workplace investigations and their role is key to ensuring that issues like this don’t ultimately trip up employers and result in findings of unfair dismissal.

As it happens, this point was overturned on appeal, although the dismissal was still found to be unfair for other reasons because were “indications in the evidence that the process was biased in favour of the Respondent.”

If you have a sensitive or complex workplace investigation, contact us for a robust solution to ensure you act appropriately and fairly.

Article correct at the time of publishing etc