The recent EAT decision in Alom v The Financial Conduct Authority [2025] UKEAT 138 provides a useful reminder of some key principles of procedural fairness when employers are carrying out disciplinary processes.
Background
Mr Alom and a colleague, Ms S, had an ostensibly friendly relationship at work that soured and became contentious.
Ms S raised a grievance against Mr Alom, alleging a wide range of issues including that he had stalked her (for example by giving her unwanted gifts, which she made clear were unwanted), sent her hostile anonymous emails, and made anonymous phone calls to her.
Mr Alom in turn raised complaints against Ms S, alleging race discrimination, sexual misconduct, and that she had made false claims against him.
Investigations followed. During the investigation into Ms S’s complaints, Mr Alom’s work laptop and emails were searched.
Mr Alom’s complaints were all rejected.
Ms S’s complaints were partially upheld, with the investigation report concluding that on balance Mr Alom had sent one of the hostile anonymous emails, though there was not enough evidence to conclude if he had sent further anonymous emails, made anonymous phone calls to Ms S, or had been following Ms S. It found on two instances he had not acted appropriately or professionally in relation to Ms S. It also recommended that Mr Alom be cautious before giving gifts to colleagues in the future.
A disciplinary process followed, on narrow grounds:
- In relation to one hostile anonymous email to Ms S that the investigation had concluded Mr Alom had sent; and
- In relation to a further email from Mr Alom (to Ms S’s line manager) that breached confidentiality in the outcome of the investigation into Mr Alom’s complaints against Ms S.
Mr Alom was summarily dismissed, with the allegations being found to be gross misconduct and misconduct, respectively. An appeal against that decision was rejected.
Claims followed for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment because of race, and victimisation.
Those claims were dismissed by the tribunal.
Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr Alom appealed to the EAT, arguing that the Employment Tribunal should have found his dismissal was procedurally unfair because:
- He had not been provided with transcripts of investigation meetings with Ms S; and
- The employer had prepared a script for the disciplinary meeting, which Mr Alom said showed they had pre-judged the outcome.
He also argued that the Tribunal should have concluded that a search of his work computer during the investigation amounted to a breach of his human rights to privacy and this made the dismissal unfair.
The EAT rejected the appeal.
- It was not unfair that Mr Alom had not been given transcripts of the investigation’s interviews with Ms S. He had sufficient information to understand the narrow disciplinary allegations against him. The investigation had been much wider and covered issues which were not relevant to the disciplinary process. Further, the managers who conducted the disciplinary and appeal hearings had not seen those transcripts and did not rely on them.
- Using a pre-prepared script did not make the process unfair. The evidence showed that the disciplinary decision-maker had not rigidly followed the script and had listened to Mr Alom’s pointsman and applied his mind to them before making a decision. The decision was not pre-determined.
- Finally, nothing found in the searches of Mr Alom’s laptop and emails had been used in the disciplinary process so, even if it had been a breach of his right to privacy (the Tribunal said it was not, and the EAT made no findings one way or the other) it had no bearing on the fairness of the dismissal.
A number of other grounds of appeal, arising out of alleged errors in the Tribunal’s judgment, were rejected also but are fact-specific and so not covered in this update.
Key Takeaways
The decision is a useful reminder of the key principle of fairness during disciplinary proceedings, namely that the employee should have sufficient information about the disciplinary allegations to be able to defend themselves. In this case, that principle was met because the disciplinary process was narrow and focused only on two points. It was irrelevant, therefore, that Mr Alom had not been provided with all information about issues that did not form pat of the disciplinary allegations.
In addition, the decision shows the importance of being clear in drawing the scope of disciplinary allegations and the evidence that is relied upon by the employer. Finally, this decision provides helpful guidance on the use of talking points or scripts to guide difficult conversations in the workplace, including during disciplinary processes. While the decision recognises that these documents are commonly used, it cautions that they should not be rigid or set a predetermined outcome. Importantly, employees must still be able to contribute and defend their position and the decision-maker must still apply their mind to the facts and make their own mind up.
