Having received a letter in June 2024 from an ex-employee (KS) complaining of sexual harassment while still employed there, Sigmatex suspended its manager Steven Powell and charged him with gross misconduct.
His dismissal a month later was largely based upon his series of text messages to KS from a year earlier, including “see you soon” and the provision of his business conference hotel room number in the small hours of the morning; descriptions of her as “totally intoxicating” and “utterly captivating”, among numerous others; and Kylie Minogue lyrics: “can’t get you out of my head”. Mr Powell was 20 years older than KS and married with a child.
The disciplinary investigation saw other instances come to light relating to other female employees, including an invitation to come for a snuggle and watch Naked Attraction. Mr Powell sought to blame intoxication, and had to concede that he had lied in the course of the investigation.
Taking a step back, one approach that an employee can take in relation to a serious disciplinary charge is full and frank honesty and outright contrition, pleading for a second chance and a lesser sanction. Outright denial, or explaining an alternative perspective, are alternatives.
On this occasion, Mr Powell sought to downplay what had happened. He said it merely involved asking a woman out and being rejected on amicable terms. He also raised a parallel grievance against an HR officer, evidently in the hope of persuading the company that key officers had been looking for ways to undermine him. He referred to his clean disciplinary record and long service.
The tribunal hearing the unfair dismissal claim was in no doubt that Sigmatex honestly believed that Mr Powell had committed acts of gross misconduct. Contrary to Mr Powell’s argument, there was no other “true cause” behind his dismissal. As to reasonable grounds to hold that belief, it was particularly relevant that the tone and content of the messages – and their timing – had rendered them inappropriate and unacceptable.
Mr Powell then sought to assert that the investigation was insufficient because KS had not been interviewed as part of it. The tribunal disagreed, accepting that the messages were in their own right extensive and incontrovertible. In turn, it found no reason to question the fairness of the disciplinary procedure. With Mr Powell’s conduct falling squarely within Sigmatex’s gross misconduct examples, dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
What might the outcome have been if Mr Powell had recognised that his Especially For You messages were out of order, refrained from Spinning Around, and sought legal advice about how best to approach the disciplinary process? Might it have been possible to stop The Locomotion towards the exit door?
Many disciplinary procedures, from either side, can benefit from an outside view. Look no further. Contact David Cooper on 07450 350715 or via david@wolverhamptonemploymentlaw.co.uk .
Share this post: