Tribunal backs prison's harassment dismissal of an officer who had reported fragile mental health

Moorland's case rested on a written rule. As a prison officer, Hayes was bound by the National Offender Management Service's conduct and discipline policy, which states: "Misconduct will not be tolerated and failure to comply with these standards can lead to action which may result in dismissal from the service." ^[4] It also says staff "must not harass others through behaviour, language and other unnecessary and uninvited actions." ^[5]

The first warning was informal, and the complainants wanted it that way. Coulter wrote in her report of the meeting: "[Hayes] said that she was only messing about and didn't know that some staff were bothered by the way she acted. I again reiterated this was totally unacceptable, and on this occasion the staff who brought it to my attention said that they did not want this to go any further. She apologised and said she understood." ^[7] That choice traded the complainants' privacy against the risk of repetition, and the behaviour was repeated. More conversations followed, and Hayes apologised again after hugging or kissing a colleague on CCTV ^[8]. On 30 May 2024 managers received a report that two male officers were getting advances from her. She had asked one to "spoon" her and had pinched another's bottom, and he told her not to touch him ^[9].

Her health came into the process when she was told she would be suspended. Deputy governor Nick Gill gave her that news on 5 June 2024, and she said she could not stay at home because she still lived with an abusive ex-partner and had self-harmed ^[10]. Gill let her keep working ^[11]. She later told the occupational health adviser that her symptoms came from personal and work stressors, including being told about the investigation ^[12].

Governor Sharon Hardy ended that arrangement in writing. Hardy had commissioned the formal investigation on 6 June 2024 ^[13]. Her letter tied the suspension to the allegations. "I have decided that you should be suspended, rather than place you on alternative duties or detached duty due to the nature of the allegations," Hardy wrote ^[15].

A skeptic would say that, by her own account, the process was making her ill, and that a fair employer would have paused it until she recovered. The record answers part of that. The prison adjusted her duties, got a medical assessment and then carried on. Operations manager John Grindle interviewed her on 17 September and 15 October 2024. She accepted some allegations, denied others and described some incidents as "just a bit of flirting" or "banter" ^[16]. She apologised and said nothing was meant maliciously, and Grindle's report cited unwanted sexual advances and comments to several male staff, plus inappropriate touching ^[17]. About nine months passed between the start of the investigation and the dismissal meeting ^[2]. The tribunal found the dismissal fair ^[2].

The published account of the hearing breaks off during her appeal and does not say how the tribunal weighed her health or the missing transcripts. So the case supports a narrower point. A misconduct process run under a written policy, with a recorded welfare adjustment and a stated reason for suspension, was found fair against an employee who had told her manager her mental health was very fragile ^[3][2].

For a manager, this quarter's decision is whether to open a formal process once a health disclosure is on file. I think the Moorland record supports opening it, as long as the welfare step and the reason for ending it are written down ^[11][15]. The consequence comes later, in the file. The adjustment, the suspension letter and the interview notes are what the employer will hold if the dismissal is challenged, as Hayes challenged hers ^[1].