Alom v Financial Conduct Authority [2025]: Practical Implications for Healthcare Employers
In Alom v Financial Conduct Authority, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has provided important clarification on procedural fairness in the context of misconduct dismissals.
While this case arose in a financial regulatory context, its lessons are highly relevant to healthcare employers, particularly those managing sensitive workplace disputes and disciplinary processes.
Background of the Case
Mr Alom was dismissed for gross misconduct following two incidents:
- An anonymous, hostile email sent to a colleague, which was deemed to amount to harassment.
- A subsequent email disclosing confidential information about an internal complaint.
He challenged the dismissal on grounds including procedural unfairness, breach of privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and allegations of discrimination and victimisation. The ET dismissed Mr Alom’s complaints, following which Mr Alom appealed to the EAT.
The EAT upheld the dismissal, finding that the employer had acted reasonably and that the disciplinary process, while imperfect, was fair overall.
Key Findings and Their Practical Impact
- Transcripts of interviews
Mr Alom argued that the dismissal was unfair because he had not been provided with transcripts of the investigation interviews with the complainant.
The EAT confirmed that while the ACAS Code of Practice recommends disclosure of relevant evidence (which may include witness statements), what matters is whether the employee has sufficient information to respond to the allegations.
Implication for Healthcare Employers:
- In disciplinary cases, especially involving clinical staff or safeguarding concerns, employers should ensure that the employee has access to the core evidence being relied upon.
- However, disclosure of full transcripts may not be necessary if the disciplinary charges are narrowly framed and the decision-maker does not rely on undisclosed material.
- HR Scripts do not automatically undermine independence
The tribunal rejected the argument that the disciplinary hearing was predetermined simply because HR had prepared a script for the chair. It accepted evidence that the decision-maker had exercised independent judgment.
Implication for Healthcare Employers:
- HR support is common in disciplinary hearings, but care must be taken to ensure that decision-makers are properly trained and empowered to make independent decisions.
- Scripts should be used as guidance, not as directives, and decision-makers should be prepared to deviate from them based on the evidence presented.
- Forensic IT Searches and Article 8 Privacy Rights
Mr Alom argued that a search of his work computer as part of the initial investigation rendered the dismissal unfair because it infringed his Article 8 (Right to Privacy) rights.
The EAT held that a forensic search of Mr Alom’s work computer did not render the dismissal unfair, as the employer did not rely on the results of the search in reaching its decision.
Implication for Healthcare Employers:
- Employers conducting IT investigations (e.g., email reviews or system audits) must ensure searches are proportionate and justified.
- If such searches are conducted, they should be documented, and employers should be clear about whether and how the results are used in disciplinary decisions.
- Procedural imperfections do not necessarily Invalidate Dismissals
The EAT emphasised that procedural flaws (such as delays in tribunal decisions or missing documentation) do not automatically render a dismissal unfair if the overall process allows the employee a fair opportunity to respond.
Implication for Healthcare Employers:
- Healthcare organisations often face complex disciplinary scenarios involving clinical governance, safeguarding, and professional standards.
- Employers should aim for procedural rigour but recognise that fairness is judged holistically. Minor imperfections may be defensible if the employee was treated reasonably overall.
Conclusion
The Alom decision reinforces a pragmatic approach to disciplinary processes. For healthcare employers, the key takeaway is that fairness does not require perfection. What matters is that employees are given a fair chance to respond, decision-makers act independently, and investigations are proportionate and transparent.
Healthcare settings often involve high-stakes disciplinary matters, including patient safety and professional conduct. This judgment provides reassurance that tribunals will assess fairness in context, not by rigid procedural checklists.