Will minor shortcomings in an employer’s disciplinary process render a dismissal unfair?
No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The case of Alom v Financial Conduct Authority [2025] held that the dismissal of an employee for misconduct was not unfair despite shortcomings in the process that was followed.
Background
The claimant, Mr Alom, was employed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Mr Alom had an argument with a female colleague, following which the colleague received an anonymous email containing harassing and threatening language. Mr Alom’s colleague reported the email to the FCA’s HR department, who conducted an investigation.
As the email was anonymous, a review of Mr Alom’s work emails was carried out as part of the investigation process to determine if there was evidence to confirm whether he had sent the email.
The review did not establish who sent the email. However, the context was taken into account, including the content of the email and the recent argument between Mr Alom and his colleague, and it was concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Alom had sent the anonymous email to his colleague. This formed the first disciplinary allegation against Mr Alom.
Mr Alom sent a further email to his line manager after the investigation (who was also his colleague’s line manager), which referred to a recommendation within the investigation report regarding a complaint he had made about his colleague.
This was considered a potential breach of confidentiality and formed the second disciplinary allegation against Mr Alom.
At the disciplinary hearing, both allegations were upheld by the FCA and Mr Alom was therefore found guilty of gross misconduct in relation to the first allegation (the anonymous email) and of misconduct for breaching confidentiality in respect of the second allegation. He was summarily dismissed.
Mr Alom brought claims of race discrimination, unfair dismissal, and victimisation against the FCA. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the reason for Mr Alom’s dismissal was his conduct and dismissed all of his claims.
The ET acknowledged that there had been minor errors in the disciplinary process, but it held that it was reasonable for the FCA to conclude that Mr Alom had sent the anonymous email, and that those minor errors did not render the dismissal unfair.
Thereafter, Mr Alom appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and argued that his dismissal was procedurally unfair on the following grounds:
- He was not provided with transcripts of the two investigative interviews conducted with his colleague.
- A script prepared by HR for the line manager at the disciplinary hearing suggested that the line manager was not the genuine decision maker and that the outcome was predetermined.
- The search of his work computer constituted a breach of his right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
EAT Decision
The EAT dismissed Mr Alom’s appeal.
Regarding Mr Alom’s first ground of appeal, the EAT referenced the ACAS Code, which requires employees to be provided with “sufficient” information about the alleged misconduct to enable them to respond.
The EAT considered that the disciplinary allegations concerned the first and second emails, both of which had been provided to Mr Alom. This was deemed sufficient, and the provision of interview transcripts was considered unnecessary.
In respect of the second ground of appeal, the EAT recognised that it was “inappropriate” for the script to express a particular view of the email that the decision maker should put forward. However, the EAT found that the overall script “did not presume any particular outcome of the process”, and that it allowed for Mr Alom’s response during the hearing to be invited.
The EAT was satisfied that the disciplinary chair had come to his decision only after hearing from Mr Alom.
For the third ground of appeal, the EAT accepted this argument but found it to be a moot point because the report resulting from the search of the computer was not relied upon in the decision to dismiss. Therefore, it could not affect the fairness of the dismissal.
Comment
Although the FCA succeeded in this case, it serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully considering how much documentation to provide to an employee facing disciplinary proceedings. As a general principle, the employee should receive the same documentation that was reviewed by the decision-maker when determining the outcome.
However, if this is not possible, employers should ensure that the employee has been given sufficient evidence relating to the allegations in line with the ACAS Code of Practice.
Employers should also be aware that scripts should be limited to guiding the process and ensuring consistency, and should not influence or predetermine the outcome of the decision.
Published 16 December 2025
