Unfair Investigation at Work: William Hill Exec Awarded £68K After Mishandled Harassment Probe

Published : August 8, 2025

In Mr Joe Tobin v William Hill Organization Limited, a former executive has been awarded nearly £70,000 after the employment tribunal ruled he’d faced an unfair investigation at work, which led to his dismissal. While his employer genuinely believed Mr Tobin was guilty of sexual harassment in the workplace, it only sought to prove his guilt.

Below, we examine the facts of the case and what led to the employment tribunal’s judgment. If you have any questions about it or believe you’ve faced an unfair disciplinary procedure, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can assess your circumstances, provide the answers you’re looking for and discuss your next steps.

All you have to do to get started is:

The Facts in Mr Joe Tobin v William Hill Organization Limited

Background to Unfair Investigation at Work

Mr Joe Tobin (“the Claimant”) worked as “Head of Search” for William Hill Organization Limited (“the Respondent”) for just under five years. Issues first came to light after a work event at a Soho pub on 20 June 2024. Here, the Claimant and some colleagues had been watching a Euro 2024 football match.

At around 11:43 pm, a colleague, Mr Akash Raval, sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Alex Carr, the Claimant’s manager. He alleged that the Claimant “had been inappropriate” with a female colleague, Ms Khan. The message stated that the Claimant had put his fingers in her mouth and grabbed her “ass.” While Mr Raval hadn’t seen the incident personally, he wanted Mr Carr to be aware of what was to unfold.

Claimant Suspended Following Allegations of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Surprisingly, though, the matter didn’t initially see any further attention. Ms Khan only submitted a grievance on 5 July, eventually prompting an investigation. During a subsequent interview, Ms Khan stated that while “nothing like this had happened with him before,” he always gave her a “weird vibe.” She noted that they’d previously had disagreements and stated that he would frequently place his hand on her back, slide it toward her “butt,” and then remove it.

In reference to the incident disclosed by Mr Raval, Ms Khan explained that she had been reacting to a surprising story with her mouth open when the Claimant inserted his fingers into her mouth. She said she was shocked by the act, instinctively grabbed his fingers to remove them, and, although she laughed awkwardly at the time, she later went to the bathroom to rinse her mouth and cry.

During this time, the Claimant was unaware that a complaint had been made. He only became aware of the grievance on 17 July, when his manager informed him of it and suspended him. He was told that there had been an allegation of sexual harassment in the workplace against him by Ms Khan, following which he was surprised and denied any wrongdoing.

The Claimant subsequently returned to the pub to request CCTV footage from that evening, but was informed that it could only be provided to a lawyer or the police. Nonetheless, the bar saved the footage to ensure it wasn’t deleted and was available, should it be required later.

Unfair Investigation at Work: Claimant Questions Investigation’s Integrity

Following Mr Carr’s investigation into the incident, he deemed it necessary to proceed to a disciplinary hearing. Despite the Claimant denying the allegations, eye-witness testimony was enough for Mr Carr to believe that the incident occurred.

This wasn’t enough for the Claimant, though, who believed Mr Carr’s investigation was insufficient. He questioned why CCTV footage of the incident hadn’t been requested, believed that additional witnesses should have been interviewed, and noted inconsistencies in the statements of those who had already provided evidence. For instance, he raised doubts about whether Ms Khan continued clubbing after the incident. If she did, he then queried how that was possible given reports that she appeared visibly distressed.

Given the Claimant’s concerns, Mr Carr temporarily paused the disciplinary procedure to investigate more. However, after further investigation, Mr Carr’s position remained unchanged. At this point, the Claimant believed his manager had “questionable motives,” especially since he’d previously encouraged victims of Mr Carr’s inappropriate workplace conduct to speak up. By having him removed, Mr Carr’s job would become easier.

Claimant Dismissed Despite Police Finding No Guilt

On 30 August, the disciplinary hearing took place. Again, the Claimant questioned Mr Carr’s impartiality in the process and witness statements that he believed were contradicted by WhatsApp messages and pictures on his phone.

Nevertheless, the Respondent concluded the hearing, believing “something did happen,” thus finding summary dismissal an “appropriate sanction” for gross misconduct. The Claimant later received a dismissal letter confirming the decision and was informed of his right to appeal, although he didn’t do so.

Significantly, on 10 August, during the employer’s disciplinary procedure, Ms Khan reported the incident to the police. This led to a subsequent investigation, during which CCTV footage of the incident was reviewed and witness statements were taken. Notably, the police found no evidence of the incidents alleged, stating, “[They] did not see any sexual assault or other forms of criminal or unacceptable behaviour.” As a result, the police pursued the matter no further.

Having been summarily dismissed, following what he believed to be an unfair investigation at work, the Claimant initiated tribunal proceedings. Among other things, he brought an unfair dismissal claim.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Consideration of the Unfair Dismissal Claim

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal turned its attention to the unfair dismissal claim. It swiftly considered the Claimant’s allegations regarding Mr Carr’s “questionable motives.” While it acknowledged the possibility that factors beyond those stated may have influenced Mr Carr’s decision, the tribunal noted that no supporting evidence had been provided. As such, it concluded that the dismissal was based solely on the allegation of sexual harassment in the workplace.

With this in mind, the tribunal considered whether the dismissal was “within the range of reasonable responses” and if the Respondent:

  1. Had a “genuine belief” that the Claimant was guilty, 
  2. Had “reasonable grounds” to make a decision,
  3. Conducted a “reasonable investigation”

On the first point, the tribunal quickly determined that the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant had committed the alleged misconduct. Yet, due to numerous inconsistencies throughout the witness testimonies, such as the intoxication levels of particular colleagues, it found that this belief wasn’t based on reasonable grounds.

Tribunal Finds Unfair Investigation at Work

The most significant issue, however, concerned the Respondent’s investigation. The tribunal stated that in severe cases such as this, there must be as much focus on “seeking evidence to clear the alleged perpetrator as finding evidence to condemn them.” But in the Claimant’s case, all attention was on confirming his guilt. The Respondent made no attempt to obtain CCTV evidence to clear him, nor did it examine his WhatsApp messages or speak to witnesses beyond those who verified Ms Khan’s story. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the Claimant had been subjected to an unfair investigation at work.

As the investigation was unfair, the tribunal held that the Respondent’s dismissal decision didn’t fall within the band of reasonable responses. Other concerns were noted, including the delay between the incident and the complaint, giving those involved “considerable scope” to collude. Yet, the tribunal emphasised that the central issue remained the inadequacy of the investigation.

Ultimately, this led to the tribunal upholding the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. He also succeeded with his claim concerning notice pay, leading to a subsequent remedy hearing, where he was awarded £68,065.29.

Get Help with Redmans

If you have any questions about workplace disciplinary procedures or believe your employment rights have been breached, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists, and following a brief chat, we can provide expert advice on your possible next steps.

To begin, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.