The case of Alom v Financial Conduct Authority, centres around the Claimant’s dismissal, following allegations and a disciplinary investigation, that he stalked a colleague and sent an harassing anonymous email to the same colleague.

A colleague of Mr Alom raised a complaint with their employer (the Financial Conduct Authority). Following an investigation, which included interviews with the colleague, it was found that, whilst not all of the colleague’s accusations were substantiated, there was reasonable belief that Mr Alom had sent the anonymous email, an act that constituted harassment.

Mr Alom then raised a complaint about the colleague. Following receipt of the investigation report, Mr Alom emailed his line manager and the manager of the colleague, referencing findings from the investigation into his complaint. The Financial Conduct Authority commenced disciplinary action against Mr Alom for the anonymous email to his colleague (harassment) and for the email to the managers, (alleged breach of confidentiality by referencing findings from a different investigation).

Mr Alom was dismissed for gross misconduct, and he later brought claims in the Employment Tribunal for unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination and Victimisation. Mr Alom was unsuccessful in his claims and the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Alom’s conduct was the overwhelming reason for his dismissal. Mr Alom accepted that, had he been the author of the anonymous email, then this would justify dismissal. Mr Alom continued to deny sending such email, but the Tribunal found it reasonable for his employer to conclude that he was the author of the email, as it contained information that only he or the colleague (who received the email) could have known and it was unlikely that she would have written the email and sent it to herself.

Mr Alom then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, stating that his dismissal was procedurally unfair as his employer had failed to provide him with a copy of the transcripts of the investigation meeting between the investigator and the colleague.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the failure by the employer to provide Mr Alom with the transcript of the investigation interview with the colleague was not unfair. In order to be fair, there is a requirement that the employee is provided with sufficient information about their alleged misconduct to enable them to answer, and respond to, the allegations against them. In this case, Mr Alom was dismissed based on only the two emails (the anonymous email to the colleague and the second email to the managers breaching confidentiality) and sufficient evidence had been provided by the employer, in relation to both of those emails.

Thus, the dismissal was not procedurally unfair, and Mr Alom’s claims were dismissed.

This is an important reminder for employers that during investigations and disciplinary procedures, it is both acceptable and fair, to provide employees only with the information directly relevant to the allegations they face, provided that the information is sufficient to allow them to meaningfully respond to such allegations. 

For Employment Law advice, please contact our Employment Team.