In Mr Tweedie v Edenbeck Ltd, a facilities manager was awarded almost £120,000 after the employment tribunal found he’d been dismissed following an unfair investigation. His gross misconduct dismissal was partly influenced by his work email receiving messages from websites including “Hot Cougar Dates.” However, the tribunal held that this hadn’t been properly investigated, with his dismissal forming part of a predetermined decision, influenced by a fallout between the father-son directors.

Read on as we discuss the case facts and examine the tribunal’s judgment in more detail. We establish the importance of a fair investigation and the steps people can take if their rights are breached.

If you have any concerns regarding your own rights, contact Redmans Solicitors now. Our team of employment specialists can provide the answers you’re looking for and discuss your options going forward. For those eligible, we can also assist you through each stage of the legal process.

Learn more about how we can help you today by:

• Phoning us on 020 3397 3603
• Completing our online form to request a callback

The Facts in Mr Tweedie v Edenbeck Ltd

Background to the Unfair Investigation

Mr Tweedie (the “Claimant”) began working as a facilities manager for Edenbeck Ltd (the “Respondent”) on 1 April 2019. The Respondent had two directors, Mr S Mayall, the finance director, and Mr C Mayall, the managing director. Notably, Mr S Mayall was the father of Mr C Mayall.

In early 2024, the relationship between the father and son began to deteriorate. Unfortunately, this led to the Claimant becoming “collateral damage,” getting “caught between conflicting instructions.”

Mr S Mayall instructed a Mr Ince to undertake due diligence on the company, with the intention of buying his son’s shares. However, Mr C Mayall subsequently emailed staff, informing them that Mr Ince’s appointment wasn’t recognised by the company. As such, he advised them to refrain from engaging with Mr Ince on company matters.

Read More: Unfair Dismissal for Alleged Timesheet Fraud: Lessons From the €170k Lidl Employment Tribunal Ruling

Problems arose when Mr S Mayall offered the Claimant a “Director of Operations” appointment. The Claimant wouldn’t pledge his loyalty to the finance director, though, likely influenced by the managing director’s email, causing tensions to arise. When the Claimant then refused to attend a meeting Mr Ince would be present at, Mr S Mayall believed the Claimant was guilty of insubordination.

This led to the involvement of an independent HR practitioner, Ms Trimarco, in an investigation. During this period, Mr Ince emailed Ms Trimarco, stating that Mr S Mayall saw the Claimant “as a maverick and a potential threat from which the business needs to protect itself.” The tribunal paid particular attention to this comment, believing it showed a decision concerning the Claimant’s employment had already been made.

Claimant Dismissed for Gross Misconduct

After the Claimant failed to attend an initial meeting, he was suspended on 25 October. The investigation then continued, with various disciplinary meetings, widening its scope to include additional allegations. One such allegation was brought before the Claimant on 17 December, when he was provided “evidence” of his misuse of his company email. The evidence included emails received between 7 November and 12 December from dating sites, including “Hot Cougar Dates, Cheap S*x Dates and Dating Cell.”

The Claimant denied any involvement with the emails, noting that he was suspended during the time they were received and that colleagues had access to his account. He then questioned why he would even sign up to such accounts with his work email. During proceedings, he asserted that this was merely part of a “scatter gun approach [to get rid of him] trying to get something to stick.”

On 20 December, Mr S Mayall then emailed the Claimant, informing him of his dismissal for gross misconduct. While the Claimant was informed of his right to appeal the decision, he ultimately opted against it, believing any further process wouldn’t be impartial. Instead, he pursued an employment tribunal case, pursuing a claim of unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal quickly established that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. Even if there were any potentially fair reasons for dismissal, an unfair investigation took place.

The tribunal pointed to the Respondent’s lack of investigation into matters such as the dating emails. It also highlighted Mr S Mayall’s comments, in which he labelled the Claimant a “maverick.” In the tribunal’s view, a decision to dismiss the Claimant had been made before any investigation had taken place, awarding him £119,248.40 in compensation. This included a basic award, compensatory award and holiday pay.

Why a Fair, Reasonable Investigation is Essential

Under UK law, a dismissal is only fair if it is for a fair reason and follows a fair process. Even when a person has been dismissed for a fair reason, if it follows an unfair investigation, the dismissal will be deemed unfair. Because of this, it’s essential for employers to take care during the investigation process.

A reasonable investigation should follow the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Acas advises that, for an investigation to be fair, among other things, it should be:

• Objective
• Compliant with company procedure
• Used to obtain all available evidence
• Impartial
• Confidential

Faced an Unfair Investigation? Here’s What You Can Do

If an employee believes they’ve experienced a flawed workplace investigation, it’s important to know that several avenues exist to resolve the matter. Before proceeding, though, it’s recommended to gather evidence of the complaint, including emails or witness contact information. Should the matter proceed to a tribunal, having such evidence to hand could prove vital in a successful outcome.

Once evidence has been collected, where appropriate, the next step is to consider internal avenues. Discussing the matter with HR, raising a grievance or appealing one’s dismissal could resolve the issue much more quickly than taking formal action.

Read More: Women’s Football Club Unlawfully Withdraws Contract Following Pregnancy Discovery

However, if internal options are inappropriate or yield an unsatisfactory outcome, external steps could be pursued. ACAS early conciliation is often the next step, as it’s required before most tribunal claims can be brought and provides another opportunity to resolve the matter informally.

Where all else has failed, though, the final step is to initiate employment tribunal proceedings. Most claims must be brought within three months, less one day, of the act complained of and must adhere to strict eligibility criteria. Should a tribunal rule in favour of a Claimant, compensation may be awarded.

Get Help With Your Unfair Investigation

If you’ve faced unfair dismissal at work following a flawed investigation, contact us. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists. After a brief chat, we can assess your case, provide answers and discuss your possible options.

It only takes a moment to get started, simply:

• Call us on 020 3397 3603
• Fill out our online form with your details to request a callback