Section I: Comprehensive Failures in the Investigation Process

The Employment Tribunal's judgment in the case of Mr G Lepiarz and Mr D Lewis versus the Trades Union Congress (TUC) found the claimants' dismissals to be unfair and wrongful. A foundational element of this conclusion was the tribunal's severe and multifaceted critique of the TUC's investigation into the allegations of misconduct. The findings reveal an investigative process that was not merely flawed in minor respects but was fundamentally unsound, lacking in diligence, objectivity, and fairness from its inception. This initial failure contaminated every subsequent stage of the disciplinary process, rendering the ultimate decision to dismiss untenable.

A. Overall Characterization of the Investigation

The tribunal did not view the TUC's investigative failings as a series of isolated errors. Instead, it determined that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies rendered the entire process invalid. The investigation was characterized as superficial and biased, falling well below the standard expected of a reasonable employer.

"Each one of the failings we have identified seemed to us to have closed down a genuine possibility that material exculpatory evidence would be found. Together they rendered the investigation as a whole cursory and unfair".

B. Failure to Probe Inconsistent Witness Evidence

A central and critical failing was its uncritical reliance on the evidence of the sole substantive witness, Ms J Dye, whose statements were riddled with contradictions. The TUC made no effort to probe or clarify these discrepancies.

"The Tribunal took the view that on their face there was a lack of internal consistency amongst Ms Dye's various statements".

"It seemed to the Tribunal that Ms Dye's evidence has not been probed at all by the respondent... A reasonable employer would have recognised that the answers to these questions might well make a difference to the interpretation of Ms Dye's evidence".

C. Failure to Seek Exculpatory Evidence

The investigation was further undermined by its one-sided nature, focusing exclusively on finding proof of guilt, rather than conducting a balanced and objective inquiry. A manager, Mr. K Rowan, revealed the TUC's flawed approach:

"Asked about whether he had looked for such evidence, Mr Rowan said: 'I am not sure that is the case, we were looking for a level of misconduct which fell below our standards and we had enough evidence to prove that was the case'. It was this attitude which we considered led to the substantive flaws we identify".

D. Deficient Scope and Failure to Gather Evidence

The TUC's investigation was also criticized for its narrow scope. The tribunal identified clear oversights, noting that simple steps could have been taken to corroborate or challenge the sole witness's account but were ignored.

"Instead the respondent chose to rely solely on the uncertain evidence of Ms Dye".

E. Paradoxical Failure to Examine Email Evidence

One of the most "curious" features of the investigation was the TUC's handling of email evidence. The claimants were suspended to preserve their emails, yet the TUC never actually examined that evidence.

"A curious feature of the investigation was that, having suspended the claimants in order to ensure that the email record was preserved, the respondent ultimately never pressed the claimants to agree to a search of their emails... Given the importance of documentary evidence, we concluded that this was a further material failure in the investigation".

Section II: Absence of Reasonable Grounds for Misconduct Findings

Flowing directly from the "poverty of the investigation," the tribunal concluded that the TUC did not have reasonable grounds for any of its findings of misconduct against either claimant. The judgment systematically dismantles each charge, finding that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable employer to reach a conclusion of guilt.

A particularly egregious aspect was the introduction of new, more serious charges directly in the dismissal letters, without these allegations ever having been formally put to the claimants during their disciplinary hearings. This represents a severe breach of natural justice.

Section III: Pervasive Procedural Unfairness in the Disciplinary and Appeal Process

Beyond the flawed investigation and unsubstantiated conclusions, the tribunal identified a series of profound procedural failures that demonstrated a systemic disregard for due process at every critical stage. These were not minor administrative errors but significant breaches of the principles of natural justice.

A. Withholding Key Evidence from the Claimants

One of the most serious procedural breaches was the TUC's decision to provide Ms. Dye's witness statements to the disciplinary panel but to withhold them from the claimants. The tribunal found the TUC's justification for this—citing Ms. Dye's vulnerability—to be illogical and unsubstantiated.

"...this was also a material unfairness in the procedure and outwith the range of reasonable responses".

B. Failure to Provide All Evidence to the Disciplinary Panel

The TUC's own HR manager failed to provide the disciplinary panel with all of the relevant evidence she had gathered. This meant that the panel made its decision on a partial and misleading selection of the available evidence.

"We concluded that this was also a material unfairness in the procedure".

C. Use of a Non-Impartial Appeal Manager

The appeals were heard by Mr. P Nowak, the Deputy General Secretary, who had already been involved in the case by approving and signing the dismissal letters. The tribunal found that this created an undeniable conflict of interest.

"Mr Nowak played some substantive role in assessing and approving the dismissals. He would not have appeared to be nor could he properly be considered to be impartial".

D. A Flawed Appeal that "Compounded" Unfairness

The appeal stage, far from rectifying the numerous errors in the initial process, actually made the situation worse. The tribunal delivered a damning verdict, finding they were not a genuine or comprehensive review.

"Far from rectifying the [unfairness] of the dismissals, in this sense Mr Nowak’s appeal compounded that unfairness".

E. Improper Justification and Handling of Suspensions

While the suspensions did not directly cause the dismissals' unfairness, the tribunal was highly critical of the TUC's decision, finding it a reflexive, ill-considered action without proper justification.

"So whilst we concluded that the suspensions were a knee jerk response and not properly justified we did not find that of themselves they contributed to the unfairness of the dismissals".

Section IV: Flawed Sanction and Dismissal Decision

The tribunal's analysis focused on the TUC's decision to dismiss the claimants. The judgment concluded that, given the comprehensive failures, the sanction of summary dismissal was inevitably outside the range of reasonable responses.

A. Dismissal Outside the Range of Reasonable Responses

"It follows from our findings above that we concluded that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to find the misconduct alleged had occurred. Dismissal for that misconduct was therefore not within the range of reasonable responses".

B. Failure to Consider Mitigating Factors

A reasonable employer is expected to take into account mitigating factors, such as an employee's length of service. The tribunal found that the TUC failed to do this in the case of Mr. Lewis, who had over two decades of service.

"We concluded that the panel did not take long service into account at the time of the dismissals."

C. Failure to Consider Alternative Sanctions

The TUC also failed to give any apparent consideration to sanctions other than dismissal. The language used in the dismissal letters suggested that dismissal was seen as the only possible outcome.

"We also agreed with the claimants’ submission that other sanctions had not been considered by the panel."