The claimant – Ms Claire Cloarec – had worked at the Royal Bank of Scotland International for a number of years and her appraisal record showed the bank thought she was “a pleasure to work with.”
But in July last year she was sacked without notice following a disciplinary hearing in which she was found guilty of gross misconduct for bullying. The bank has a well-publicised ‘zero tolerance’ approach to such issues. Under its terms and conditions, employees are told the company views bullying as ‘gross misconduct’ and that it is potentially grounds for being dismissed without notice.
It came following a complaint from an employee who had worked at the bank for eight years in February 2017. He told his line manager that for the past seven months Ms Cloarec had been bullying him.
Amongst the claims levelled against her were that she had conducted an unfair recruitment process for a job the complainant was interested in; had mocked him for the way he spoke; and told him he would have to decide between his job and his sport when he requested taking time off to attend a competition.
The Tribunal – presided by Deputy Chairman Advocate Davies and two Panel members – heard that the bank conducted a thorough and detailed investigation, and all the allegations were upheld. Ms Cloarec was informed of the decision and how it had been made. She then appealed, but the bank upheld its decision.
Giving evidence to the tribunal Ms Cloarec said she felt she had been “targeted” and that the disciplinary officers had been misled into dismissing her. She also disputed some of the allegations levelled against her, and that her dismissal was disproportionate. She claimed that, rather than being sacked, the company should be ‘coaching’ and guiding her, and that a male colleague who had faced similar charges had not been treated as harshly.
The employee who prompted the disciplinary hearing no longer works at the bank and didn’t give evidence to the tribunal, but a number of other members of staff did.
Explaining her judgement, the Deputy Chairman commented: “We have considered carefully whether we feel that this was a case that justified summary dismissal. We take into account the long service of the employee, and her good record, but we accept the evidence of the employer that it had a zero tolerance policy, which was known to the claimant.
“The respondent felt that they could not retain the claimant in the workplace… We accept that having made these findings, the employer could not realistically have maintained the employment.”
In doing so, the tribunal rejected the claim of unfair/wrongful dismissal.