Serious allegations don’t excuse vague charges or refusing to let your companion speak.

The situation

The claimant was a prison governor employed by the Secretary of State for Justice. His employer dismissed him after an accusation of sexual harassmentUnwanted behaviour related to a protected characteristic, such as your sex, race, disability, age or religion, that violates your dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating environment... and unprofessional conduct toward a junior colleague. The disciplinary charges were vaguely worded, and he was left to work out the specific allegations against him by reading a 200-page investigation report himself. At the hearing, his employer refused to let his companion speak on his behalf, even though both the employer's own policy and the ACASThe Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. A public body that provides free, impartial guidance on workplace rights and disputes, and runs the mandatory early conciliation process before any ... Code required it.

What the tribunal found

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996The primary piece of legislation setting out employees rights in the UK, including the right not to be unfairly dismissed, the right to a written statement of employment particulars, and rights relati.... The vague charges meant the claimant could not properly understand or answer the case against him. Refusing to let his companion address the hearing breached the statutory right to be accompanied under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.

The tribunal also found genuine evidence behind the misconduct allegation itself. That's why the compensation award will be cut by 80 percent, reflecting the chance a fair process would have reached the same result, plus another 15 percent for the claimant's own contributory conductContributory conduct is blameworthy behaviour by you that a tribunal finds actually contributed to your own dismissal. It can reduce your compensation even where the dismissal itself was unfair, and u..., an inappropriate text message he had sent. A remedy hearing to finalise the award has yet to happen.

Even when you're facing a serious allegation, your employer must run a fair process. That means telling you plainly what you're accused of instead of leaving you to piece it together from hundreds of pages of investigation material. Being told to go away and read the report yourself falls short of that duty. You're entitled to know the specific charge you have to answer, in plain terms, before the hearing takes place.

The law entitles you to bring a companion to a disciplinary hearingA formal meeting at which your employer sets out the allegation against you and gives you the opportunity to respond before any decision is made. You have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or..., and that companion can actually speak on your behalf once they're there. This case confirms that refusing to let a companion address the panel is a breach of the law, on top of breaching the employer's own policy and the ACAS Code.

A genuine finding of misconduct can stand alongside a broken process. Here, the tribunal found real evidence behind the underlying allegation, and that pulled the compensation down sharply. A flawed process is worth challenging in its own right, because it shapes both the outcome and what you're eventually owed, even when the conduct itself is fairly clear. If any of this sounds familiar, get advice before your hearing takes place, so someone can check whether your employer's process actually holds up.