Employment Law Case Update: Unfair Dismissal and Inadequate Disciplinary Process

Our policies and procedures within a business are the foundation of our relationships with our employees and it is vital that should a policy change, our employees are updated and supported in order to achieve any change in request. This brings us to the case of Mr Jonathan Duxbury v the University of Huddersfield 2021, reviewed here by our Employment Law team, in which the tribunal considered whether a lecturer had been unfairly dismissed after failing to complete his PhD. 

Mr Duxbury worked for the University of Huddersfield as a senior lecturer in the Accountancy, Finance and Economics department from 2005 until his dismissal in 2020. He did not hold a PhD, though he is professionally qualified and holds a fellowship with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

In 2013, the university introduced a new policy that all lecturers at Mr Duxbury’s level were to have a PhD. Mr Duxbury subsequently enrolled in a doctoral programme, however in 2015, he began to experience increased stress at work and told his GP that he was feeling overworked. In light of this, occupational health and Mr Duxbury’s line manager agreed that his doctoral work should be suspended. In 2016, this suspension ended but Mr Duxbury did not re-enrol in the doctoral programme, prompting the university to conduct an investigation. Mr Duxbury was told that he would not be provided with additional hours to complete his PhD work, despite his concerns that his contracted hours provided insufficient time for him to complete his PhD work and his other lecture duties.

After failing to continue his PhD studies, Mr Duxbury received a first written warning in 2017 and a final written warning in April 2018 with instructions to re-enrol by the end of the month. Mr Duxbury appealed this final warning, which was denied. He was again instructed to re-enrol by the end of 2018.

In October 2018, Mr Duxbury was diagnosed with work-related stress, and he also reported experiencing sleep deprivation and memory problems. Consequently, Mr Duxbury took a period of sick leave and attended counselling. He was on sick leave until 30 May 2019 when his GP reported that he may be fit for work with a phased return and adjusted work duties.

Mr Duxbury returned to work in June 2019 and was once again told he had to re-enrol in doctoral studies. He was subsequently dismissed in 2020 for failing to complete a PhD, after which he brought a claim against the university for unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld his claim for unfair dismissal. Judge Wade said that there were shortcomings in the disciplinary process and that the written warnings were “manifestly unfair”. Requiring Mr Duxbury to hold a PhD to continue in his lecturer role was “undoubtedly a change to [Mr Duxbury’s] contract of employment”.

The ET said Mr Duxbury acted with integrity, and the university’s response of “just enrol” to his concerns about how the additional study was affecting his health was “entirely outside the band of reasonable responses”.

A remedy hearing will be arranged for a later date.

This case serves as a reminder to employers that their duty to protect the health and safety of employees extends to employees’ mental health as well. Employers should be flexible and responsive to the needs of their employees and not be closed-minded to the idea of making reasonable concessions. 

If you have any questions regarding this article, you can call our Employment team today on 023 8071 7717 or email employment@warnergoodman.co.uk.

This was previously part of our weekly Employment Law Newsletter. If you would like to subscribe, please email us at events@warnergoodman.co.uk or just fill in our subscription form.

ENDS

This is for information purposes only and is no substitute for, and should not be interpreted as, legal advice.  All content was correct at the time of publishing and we cannot be held responsible for any changes that may invalidate this article.