The Gareth Hopkinson Cummins appeal was supposed to test whether my dismissal was fair. Instead, it became a corporate validation exercise. Cummins appointed a senior Cummins executive, supported him with Cummins HR, fed him Cummins witnesses and received the Cummins answer it wanted.
Hopkinson later described himself as an “independent appeal officer”. That label did a heroic amount of work.
His 24 May 2023 outcome upheld my dismissal in my absence. It also overlooked explicit emails and flattened contradictory Occupational Health records. A fresh social-media case appeared which I had not been invited to answer, while other conclusions collide with his own later witness statement.
Length did not rescue it. Forty pages of corporate varnish remain corporate varnish.
What A Real Appeal Was Supposed To Do
Acas describes an appeal as a review of whether a decision should be overturned or changed. An employer should reconsider whether the procedure and outcome were fair, investigate again where necessary and consider a different result.
Cummins’s own appeal guidance went further. It instructed an appeal panel to examine the issues fully. New evidence required particular attention, and the employee had to be allowed to comment on it. The same document called an appeal “essential to natural justice” and warned against using it to punish an employee for appealing.
Hopkinson had that guidance in the bundle. What followed bore only a decorative relationship to it.
Formally, he had not made the original dismissal decision. That satisfied the most basic structural test. Independence, however, is demonstrated by conduct rather than conferred by a job title.
Source: Cummins Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure 2013, appeal guidance, pages 12–13 — held by TCAP. See also the Acas Code and appeal guidance.
“Initial Findings” Before Hearing Me
Around ten days before the proposed meeting, Hopkinson produced notes headed “Initial Findings”. They described the dismissal letter as a “good timeline”. Meanwhile, “LT avoidance of process” and “lack of reasonable engagement” appeared as starting propositions. My appeal, by contrast, was labelled “scattered” and “accusing”.
Preliminary notes are not automatically sinister. An appeal officer has to prepare. Yet these were not merely neutral headings; they imported Cummins’s central characterisation before Hopkinson had heard a word from me.
The same notes said that, to run a balanced and fair process, he should seek my input on the eight main grounds. That was sensible. It was also the part of his plan that eventually became optional.
One preliminary point even identified a possible “risk assessment gap”. By the outcome stage, curiosity had hardened into concurrence with the managers whose process he was meant to review.
Source: Gareth Hopkinson appeal preparation notes, main hearing bundle pages 1312–1317; witness statement paragraphs 25–28 – held by TCAP.
The Rescheduling Assurance That Evaporated
On 5 May, Niamh Storry wrote:
“With regards to the appeal, if the ICO issues are not resolved, we can reschedule but I wanted to get a date arranged in principle as Gareth’s diary is quite busy later in May.”
That was a clear conditional assurance. The date was provisional and rescheduling remained available if the ICO issue was unresolved.
Seven days later, Cummins reversed course. Storry said the ICO issue was narrow and the hearing would proceed on 18 May regardless.
Cummins was entitled to reassess how relevant it considered the complaint. Nevertheless, it cannot honestly present my resulting distrust as something generated inside my own head. The company first offered a condition and then withdrew it when waiting became inconvenient.
The underlying ICO correspondence was not imaginary. On 26 April, the ICO said it had reversed its earlier position and reopened the matter. It had also contacted Cummins and required the company to identify a lawful basis for its handling of my information.
That did not guarantee my complaint would succeed. It did make my wish to await the decision intelligible, particularly because the contested Occupational Health process sat near the centre of my appeal.
Source: Storry email of 5 May 2023 and attached ICO email of 26 April 2023; appeal email chain – held by TCAP.
“I’m Attending 100%”
I initially said on 17 May that the appeal should wait for the further ICO complaint. Cummins then announced that Hopkinson would decide the appeal in my absence and that he and Storry would no longer travel to Darlington.
The later sequence matters:
- At 17:33, I said I wanted to attend and requested a short postponement until the following week.
- Twenty-five minutes later, Storry declared: “You have refused to do so.”
- My 18:08 reply was simple: “Show me where I have refused.”
- Five minutes later, I wrote: “If its an option of tomorrow or in my absence then I’m attending 100%, no matter how reluctant.”
- At 18:51, I made it plainer still: “I am attending in person.”
Yes, the reversal was late. Cummins had also postponed the appeal twice at my request. Those facts entitled Hopkinson to criticise my indecision and the logistical inconvenience.
They did not entitle him to erase the reversal.
By the next morning, Cummins expressly acknowledged it. Storry wrote that she was “pleased” I would attend and moved the hearing to my requested time of 2:30pm. Then came the switch: I still had to travel to the Darlington Engine Plant, but Hopkinson and Storry would sit together in Huddersfield and appear on Zoom.
The format had never been agreed. Earlier invitations promised an in-person hearing, a room, a note-taker, a right to be accompanied, the ability to present evidence and Hopkinson meeting me at reception. They even said an alternative date could be arranged if I or a companion could not attend.
At 10:38 that morning, I explained why a same-day Zoom substitute was not equivalent. I was unfamiliar with the software, the recording arrangement had been prepared for an in-person hearing, and sharing a large body of evidence would be harder. I asked for a conventional meeting when they could attend.
Hopkinson did not offer a brief adjournment, a test call, a remote meeting from my home, a substitute HR adviser or an in-person hearing with Storry joining remotely. He simply converted an objection to a last-minute format change into a fresh refusal to attend.
That manoeuvre does not conclusively prove a pre-planned trap. It does show a process more committed to preserving the date than hearing the appellant.
Hopkinson’s outcome repeatedly says a point was unclear, could not be clarified or would have been explored had I attended. That makes the refusal to preserve a genuine hearing more serious, not less. Their procedural choice created an evidential deficit; his outcome then used that deficit against me.
Source: appeal email chain, 17–18 May 2023; third rescheduled appeal letter dated 12 May 2023; Hopkinson witness statement paragraphs 44–60 — held by TCAP.
The Private Explanation Hopkinson Added Later
Hopkinson’s witness statement supplies a detail the emails did not disclose. At paragraph 54, he said Storry confided that she was in early pregnancy and that my actions and behaviour were increasing her anxiety about being in the same room as me. He said it had reached an emotional point for her.
Her discomfort may have been genuine. If so, it deserved a proper welfare response.
What it did not justify was silently transferring the procedural cost to me. Storry was the HR adviser, not the appeal officer. Cummins could have substituted another adviser, allowed her to participate remotely while Hopkinson attended, or moved the hearing by a few days.
Instead, the statement places this private concern directly between my unequivocal acceptance and Hopkinson’s decision to impose Zoom. That does not prove causation, but it raises an obvious question: did an undisclosed concern about Storry being in the room help determine the format for my appeal?
Hopkinson offered no clear answer. He merely insisted they had done everything reasonable while listing several things they chose not to try.
Source: Gareth Hopkinson witness statement, paragraphs 53–60 — held by TCAP.
Cummins Investigated Cummins And Found Cummins Innocent
Hopkinson’s investigative technique was exquisite in its simplicity.
He interviewed Steve Morley, Shelly Mercer, Suzanne Shelbourne, Gemma Penk, Nicole Newall and Michael Abbott. In other words, he asked Cummins personnel about a complaint concerning the conduct of Cummins personnel.
The notes show the method. Abbott said he never intentionally antagonised me. Newall said she was never purposefully evasive. Mercer said her communications were factual and not designed to antagonise.
Mystery solved. Everyone asked whether they meant to behave badly said no.
Intent was relevant, but it could not settle the issue. A supposedly independent reviewer also had to test accuracy, effect, consistency, missing answers and the documentary record. Hopkinson instead treated self-certification as evidence while reserving scepticism for the one person he never interviewed.
His outcome then announced that there had been “no antagonism, deliberate or otherwise”. That conclusion did not emerge from a balanced investigation. It emerged from a corporate confession booth in which absolution came automatically.
Source: Hopkinson witness statement, paragraphs 67–71; Abbott, Newall and Mercer interview notes dated 16–17 May 2023; appeal outcome dated 24 May 2023 — held by TCAP.
The Request He Somehow Could Not Find
Hopkinson wrote twice that he could see no evidence I asked Cummins to “work through issues before booking appointments”.
Here is what I had emailed Michael Abbott on 23 December 2022:
“Please supply me with a copy of the referral on 3rd January when you return and we’ll work through any issues from there … perhaps you should set a date that leaves us plenty of time to discuss the agenda.”
On 13 January 2023, I repeated the point:
“I would avoid booking an appointment with OH until any issues that arise are resolved … I want to work through the issues and engage with OH.”
Those are not ambiguous fragments requiring forensic reconstruction. They are the request Hopkinson said did not exist, expressed in almost the exact words he used to deny it.
The original appeal invitation even quoted my complaint that appointments were repeatedly booked before issues were resolved despite my request to stop. Hopkinson therefore had the point in the appeal, in the invitation and in the underlying emails.
Either he did not review all relevant papers as carefully as he claimed, or his finding was unsustainable on the documents. There is no flattering third option.
If this was “very careful” review, a paper shredder is an archivist.
Source: emails to Michael Abbott dated 23 December 2022 and 13 January 2023; appeal invitation dated 24 March 2023; appeal outcome pages 18–22 — held by TCAP.
“Cummins Had No Input” – Apart From Opting For It
The outcome also said that the move from an Occupational Health nurse to a physician was a clinical decision and that “Cummins had no input” into who was most appropriate.
The contemporaneous OH record is rather less obedient.
One internal message said: “this is business decision from Cummins for an OHP assessment, they were offered the option and opted for OHP.” A later BHSF email recorded 19 questions from the business, said HR questions had been posed by the legal team, referred to an “employment tribunal scenario” and concluded: “Please note the business opted for the OHP assessment”.
There was plainly clinical input too. The OH adviser considered a physician more suitable because of the number and complexity of the questions. However, the record describes both a clinical recommendation and a business choice. Hopkinson compressed that mixed picture into the categorical claim that Cummins had no input.
That was not careful nuance. It was a false binary which removed the inconvenient half of the evidence.
Source: First Supplementary Bundle, pages 178 and 229–230; appeal outcome, Occupational Health escalation section — held by TCAP.
He Did Not Know About Discrimination, Except Where He Quoted It
Hopkinson’s later witness statement says he knew I had brought an Employment Tribunal claim but had “no knowledge” of what it concerned and did not know it included discrimination.
That sits badly with paragraph 28 of the same statement, where he said he carefully read all the detail to familiarise himself with my grounds.
It sits even worse with his own appeal outcome. On page two, Hopkinson quoted this passage from my grounds:
“his management team is accused of disability discrimination and being taken to tribunal for the same.”
He then made a finding that the existence and nature of the tribunal claim had not coloured Morley’s view.
This is not metadata, inference or suspicion. Hopkinson’s own outcome proves he read and ruled upon a sentence expressly linking the tribunal claim to disability discrimination. His later claim not to know cannot comfortably coexist with it.
The final flourish is almost comic. Paragraph 82 says those issues played no part in his “decision to dismiss” me. Hopkinson was supposedly reviewing somebody else’s dismissal, yet for one revealing moment the independent appeal officer appeared to forget whose decision it was.
Source: Hopkinson witness statement, paragraphs 28 and 82; appeal outcome, page 2 – held by TCAP.
The Recreated Letter He Did Not Investigate
My appeal raised a missing sick-pay letter which I said had later been recreated with an earlier date. I also explained that I had contacted Action Fraud about suspected fraud.
Hopkinson did not interview Christopher Paling, the person who created the replacement document. His witness list contains six Cummins employees, but not the witness at the centre of that allegation.
Instead, the outcome grouped my contact with Action Fraud among the “threats” used against me. Reporting the suspected wrongdoing became the conduct to scrutinise; the underlying document did not.
Paling later admitted in his tribunal statement that he could not find the original letter. He recreated it in September with a date close to when he believed the missing letter had been posted. Paling also did not believe he told Penk it was a recreation.
That later admission does not retrospectively prove criminal fraud. It does confirm that my appeal had identified a real document-creation event which demanded investigation. Hopkinson managed to write a sprawling outcome without asking the most obvious witness the most obvious questions.
He investigated the alarm and ignored the smoke.
Source: appeal grounds dated 20 February 2023 and submitted in March; Hopkinson witness statement, paragraphs 67–71; Christopher Paling witness statement, paragraphs 8–13 – held by TCAP.
A Fresh Twitter Disciplinary Smuggled Into The Appeal
Hopkinson also reviewed a collection of posts made before and after dismissal. He concluded that they breached several company policies, would themselves have resulted in summary dismissal and made any return to Cummins impossible.
That was not simply a review of Morley’s original decision. It was a hypothetical second disciplinary case, assembled during the appeal and decided without telling me that I had to answer it.
I had voluntarily sent Storry some Twitter material concerning a separate complaint about another employee. That did not amount to notice that Hopkinson would trawl a broader selection, treat it as fresh misconduct and decide the sanction in my absence.
Cummins’s own appeal guidance said new evidence required particular attention and that the employee should be allowed to comment. Hopkinson did the opposite. He considered the new material, interviewed people said to be affected, accepted their accounts and delivered a hypothetical summary-dismissal finding without hearing mine.
The outcome tried to insure itself by saying he would have rejected the appeal without the tweets. Yet it also said his decision was “influenced” by ongoing behaviour and relied on the posts to declare reinstatement untenable. Both passages cannot reduce the material to harmless decoration.
This was not an appeal curing defects in the original process. It was Cummins adding a new route to the same destination after the passenger had been removed from the vehicle.
Source: appeal outcome, pages 12–14 and 31–33 plus Appendix 2; Cummins appeal guidance, pages 12–13 – held by TCAP.
Sweeney Supplied The Psychic Reading
Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney later accepted the absence narrative and went further. Paragraph 162 of the written reasons said I had “no intention” of attending and was “never going to attend”.
The judge was entitled to criticise my late change of position. He could also find the Zoom proposal reasonable. What the documents did not permit him to do cleanly was convert “I’m attending 100%” and “I am attending in person” into proof of a secret intention never to attend.
That was not fact-finding anchored to the written words. It was mind-reading deployed to neutralise them.
Hopkinson’s process created the absence; Sweeney’s judgment turned it into character evidence. Between them, an express acceptance became another excuse, a same-day format objection became lifelong unwillingness, and Cummins’s refusal to pause became proof of its patience.
Corporate logic had completed the full circle. The evidence mattered only when it pointed in the approved direction.
Source: Employment Tribunal written reasons in Thompson v Cummins Ltd, paragraphs 160–163 — held by TCAP.
TCAP Verdict
Hopkinson said he took the role seriously. I believe he took the paperwork seriously, the company’s feelings seriously and the preservation of Cummins’s original decision extremely seriously.
What he did not seriously test were the propositions most capable of embarrassing the company.
An explicit request disappeared. Business input into the OH decision became no input. A discrimination claim quoted in his own outcome became something he did not know about. A recreated financial document went uninvestigated. Fresh Twitter allegations entered through the side door. Finally, my unequivocal decision to attend was repackaged as proof that I never intended to attend.
Hopkinson did not correct a defective process. He laminated it.
Independent?
My arse.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project