The next step

Disciplinary investigation report

[Form]

The tribunal's ruling in the case mentioned in the article

[Weblink]

£1 million compensation over car park dispute

Background facts

Richard Hastings (H), who is black and of Afro- Caribbean origin, began working for the King’s College NHS Foundation Trust in 1996. Over the course his employment, H was promoted to the role of IT manager. On 29 July 2015, as he was driving into the hospital car park, a van sped aggressively past him. H approached the van driver, Mr Archard (A), wanting to explain to him that there was a 5mph speed limit in the car park.

Abusive encounter

According to the tribunal evidence, when H approached the van, A became abusive, calling him a “c***” and f***ing stupid” . H then tried to write down the van’s number plate so he could make a formal complaint. A asked H his name, which he gave, and then said: “what’s your name, that’s not your real name”. A then asked if H was a manager at the hospital. H confirmed that he was and A said: “They’ll let anything happen here” . H took A’s comments to be racially motivated.

Getting physical

A then placed his hand on H’s forearm. Believing that the altercation was about to turn violent, H “lifted his arm to extricate himself”. In doing so he made contact with A’s face, but denied hitting or punching him. H called the hospital’s security office for help. No record of the phone call was officially logged (but it wasn’t disputed) and no one came to his aid. The hospital subsequently investigated the incident. During this process, A alleged that H had said he had “beaten and taken apart people like him” and felt that he was the victim of the incident.

Unfairly dismissed

In October 2015 H was dismissed for gross misconduct. This led to his claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In considering the case, the tribunal looked carefully at the employer’s process.

It noted that the investigatory manager had effectively “interrogated” H; the notes showed that he had repeatedly asked the same questions, used a closed line of questioning, assumed H was the aggressor and his investigatory report did not reflect his findings in a neutral manner.

Unconscious bias

This led the tribunal to conclude that there was an “unconscious bias” against H and this was connected to his race. Both his claims succeeded and in November 2018 he was awarded £1 million compensation (see The next step ).

Tip 1. The employer lost because its investigation procedure was fatally flawed. At this stage, no assumptions or accusations should ever be made about wrongdoing. The disciplinary investigation manager should be completely impartial and unconnected to the matter.

Tip 2. To prevent claims, the subsequent report should also be neutral, balanced and fair. Ask your investigation managers to follow our investigation report template and their findings will be legally safe (see The next step ).

For the tribunal’s ruling in this case and a disciplinary investigation report, visit http://tipsandadvice-personnel.co.uk/download (PS 21.01.02).