In Mr Johal v Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, an interim director has been awarded more than £118,000. This comes after he brought a successful unfair dismissal case.

His claim followed his gross misconduct dismissal for allegedly using his position to take advantage of a company car scheme. The Tribunal found that this hadn’t been the case, with him simply looking for an alternative vehicle after his car was written off in a serious road traffic accident.

Read on as we examine exactly what happened and discuss the Tribunal’s judgment. We outline when a dismissal is unfair under UK law and the steps those affected can take.

If you believe you’ve been unfairly dismissed, contact Redmans Solicitors for specialist help. After a brief consultation, our expert team can answer any queries you may have and outline your possible next steps. We can also assess your eligibility to make a claim, and guide those eligible through the process.

To get started on your journey with us today, please:

• Call us directly on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback by completing our online form with your details

The Facts in Mr Johal v Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust

Background to the Dismissal Case

Mr Johal (the “Claimant”) began working as Transport Manager for Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust (the “Respondent”) on 17 July 2006. He was appointed Interim Joint Director of Estates and Facilities in June 2023 and remained in this position until his dismissal.

Issues arose after the Claimant was involved in a serious road traffic accident on 26 December 2022. He was with his wife, daughter and parents, and, following the incident, had his car written off. This stressful period was only exacerbated by the fact that his father learned of tumours on his brain.

Read More: Anti-Zionism is a Protected Philosophical Belief: EAT Confirms in Miller v University of Bristol

The Claimant’s car involved in the accident was a Mercedes GLE Coupe, which he’d obtained via a salary sacrifice scheme. After the accident, he returned to work on 3 January 2023 and tried to obtain a new car under the same scheme, but it wasn’t expected to be delivered until March 2024.

As such, the Claimant contacted the Respondent’s Associate Director of Facilities and Sustainability to discuss how this could be resolved. After reviewing the matter, the Claimant was informed that he could use demonstration vehicles as a temporary measure. He subsequently did just that, with no problems raised for quite some time.

Claimant Sacked for Alleged Gross Misconduct

Matters changed on 5 September 2023, when the Respondent began a restructuring. The Claimant was informed that his role was affected and that he would have to reapply for his role.

However, before his application could progress, the Respondent’s Chief Executive received an anonymous letter containing “several serious accusations” against the Claimant. This led to an investigation. Among the allegations, he was accused of inappropriately using demonstration vehicles, bullying a colleague and fraud.

The Claimant learned of the allegations against him on 25 September. These “horrified” him, and he quickly stopped using the demonstration vehicles.

Nonetheless, a formal investigation proceeded the following day. During the process, the Claimant was accused of using his “position, influence and office to obtain personal gain from the Trust Lease car scheme…” This was because it was alleged that someone less senior wouldn’t be able to access the demonstration vehicles in the same way.

On 1 November, he was then informed that “there was a disciplinary case to answer.” Despite the Claimant having a clean disciplinary record for more than 17 years and being a loyal, “hardworking and trusted employee,” the Respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct with effect from 1 December. It explained that his use of the demonstration vehicles had the “potential to bring the trust into disrepute” should the allegations be made public.

While the Claimant appealed his dismissal, this was ultimately unsuccessful, leading to his unfair dismissal case.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the Employment Tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal case. It found several issues with both the reason for dismissal and the process that led to it.

Looking first at the reason for dismissal, which was allegedly misconduct, the Tribunal stated that it was unreasonable for the Respondent to believe that the Claimant was guilty. According to the Tribunal, “At the time that he was using the demonstration vehicles he genuinely believed that he was doing nothing wrong.” Notably, senior management also saw nothing wrong, as it knew about his use but did nothing to stop him.

In the Tribunal’s view, the Claimant was simply looking for a short-term resolution following his accident until his new car was delivered. This went against the allegation that he used his “position, influence and office to obtain personal gain…” and justified its ruling that the dismissal was unfair.

Yet, this wasn’t the only element the Tribunal took issue with. When analysing the dismissal procedure, the Tribunal found several flaws. Among them, the Respondent failed to comply with its own policies, including that it didn’t appoint an impartial investigator of appropriate seniority to the Claimant when undertaking its investigation. The Tribunal referenced the ongoing redundancy procedure, stating that the anonymous letter was fortuitous and that it had already been decided that the Claimant was “surplus to requirements.”

With the above in mind, the Tribunal therefore awarded the Claimant £118,888.50 in compensation.

What is an Unfair Dismissal?

Under UK law, an unfair dismissal case arises when someone is dismissed for an unfair reason or without following a fair process.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 establishes five potentially fair reasons for dismissal. These include:

• Misconduct – Whereby an individual is guilty of something deemed unacceptable
• Capability – Whereby an individual is found to be incapable of their duties
• Redundancy – When a role becomes no longer needed
• A legal reason – Whereby an individual cannot legally complete their tasks (like a delivery driver losing their driving licence)
• Some other substantial reason – A vague term used to encompass a variety of other circumstances

If someone is dismissed for a reason not included in the above examples, their dismissal will be treated as unfair. However, even if someone is dismissed for a potentially fair reason, firing staff without following a fair process can still lead to a dismissal being ruled unfair.

Read More: Gardener Wins £27k Following Disablist Slurs in Disability Harassment at Work Case

Before an employer terminates an individual’s employment, they must follow a fair procedure, in line with the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. While this guide isn’t legally binding, Employment Tribunals use it in their decisions and can increase awards by up to 25% for non-compliance. Among other things, a fair process will usually include informing the individual affected that their employment is at risk, giving them a chance to respond, undertaking a thorough and impartial investigation, and considering alternatives to dismissal.

What Can I do if I’ve Been Unfairly Dismissed?

If someone thinks they’ve been unfairly dismissed, they may be able to resolve the matter internally, through an informal chat or formal grievance, or externally, via Acas early conciliation or an Employment Tribunal claim. Whatever steps are taken, though, it’s recommended to first gather evidence of the issue(s) complained of to support one’s case.

Once evidence has been gathered, the next usual step is to consider internal dispute resolution avenues. Depending on the circumstances, an informal chat with HR or a formal grievance may be appropriate. While the latter places additional legal obligations on the employer in how they handle the matter, both options offer an opportunity to resolve it without the stress and cost of legal action.

If, however, the issue cannot be resolved internally, it may then be necessary to initiate Acas early conciliation. Doing so is free and required before most Employment Tribunal claims can be brought. It also offers another chance to resolve the matter informally.

Yet, if all other steps have proved unsuccessful, it may be necessary to bring a Tribunal claim. To proceed, strict eligibility criteria and time limits must be adhered to. But if successful, compensation, among other remedies, could be awarded. This is what happened in Mr Johal’s dismissal case, following which he received more than £118,000.

In any case, it’s recommended to seek specialist legal advice before making a decision on how to proceed. Expert help ensures one’s legal position is fully understood and the best course of action is taken.

Want Help with Your Dismissal Case? Get Help with Redmans

If you think you’ve faced an unfair dismissal, contact us without delay. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists, and following a brief chat, we can provide expert advice. We will discuss your circumstances, provide answers and outline your possible next steps.

To learn more about how we could help you:

• Phone 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form to request a consultation