# APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL
## Worked fictional document
Date: 3 March 2027
Private and confidential — appeal under the North Trent Digital Services disciplinary procedure
To: Rebecca Holt, Chief Operating Officer, North Trent Digital Services Limited, 7 Castle Boulevard, Nottingham NG7 1FB From: Samuel Peter Okafor, former Project Manager, 19 Mapperley Park Drive, Nottingham NG3 5HP Email: samuel.okafor@example.test Employee reference: NTD-EMP-0937 Subject: Appeal against dismissal dated 24 February 2027
Dear Ms Holt,
I appeal the decision communicated by Martin Ellis, Delivery Director, on 24 February 2027 to dismiss me for alleged gross misconduct relating to the Orion Patient Portal project. I submit this appeal within the five working days required by clause 14 of the disciplinary procedure. I ask for a prompt appeal hearing before a manager who was not involved in the investigation or original hearing. I will be accompanied by Aisha Rahman, a certified Unite official, aisha.rahman@example.test. If she cannot attend the first proposed date, my alternative companion is Lewis Ahmed, a fellow worker, Lewis.ahmed@example.test. If either proposed companion cannot attend the first date, I will offer two alternative dates within five working days.
I have been employed by North Trent Digital Services since 12 September 2018 and became Project Manager on 1 April 2024. My employment ended on 24 February 2027, subject to the appeal outcome. The dismissal letter describes the sanction as summary dismissal for unauthorised disclosure of patient-test data and says that I failed to follow the information-security protocol. I deny deliberate or reckless disclosure. I accept that a test export was placed in a restricted project folder on 11 January, but I believed the export had been anonymised, access was limited to the named Orion team and the file was removed within 42 minutes when the security analyst identified a residual identifier. I reported the incident immediately and cooperated with the investigation.
## Ground one: procedural unfairness and inadequate investigation
The investigation was conducted by Claire Willis, Information Security Manager, between 12 January and 2 February. Ms Willis reported to Martin Ellis, who later chaired my disciplinary hearing and made the dismissal decision. The investigator did not interview Priyanka Shah, the data analyst who created the export, or Tom Bennett, the engineer who confirmed the restricted permissions. Both witnesses were identified in my 18 January response. Ms Willis also did not inspect the folder permission audit, the deletion log or the project risk register before concluding that I had "knowingly made patient data available to unauthorised recipients".
The audit log produced with the investigation report shows access by three named Orion employees only. It records no download, forwarding or external access. The report did not explain why that evidence was disregarded. The deletion log records removal at 11.52 on 11 January, while the allegation summary says 14.30. The difference matters to whether the file remained available after the alert. A fair investigation should have reconciled the two records and tested the controls rather than treating an unverified time in the allegation summary as fact.
The original hearing was held on 17 February. I asked for Priyanka and Tom to attend and asked for the permissions report in its native form. Mr Ellis refused both requests, saying the hearing was not a "technical audit". The allegation, however, depended on technical access and on whether disclosure was possible. I had only one working day to answer a 31-page report, although I asked on 12 February for a further seven days because the report included 11 attachments and two encrypted audit files. I was given two additional days but the encrypted files did not open on the company laptop, and no alternative secure copy was provided.
## Ground two: material evidence was withheld or disclosed too late
The dismissal letter relies on an internal message from Martin Ellis to the Chief Executive dated 19 January saying that I "knew the file contained live identifiers". I did not receive that message before or at the hearing. It was first shown to me in the dismissal meeting on 24 February, when I could not investigate its context or ask Mr Ellis why he wrote it. I ask that the appeal chair exclude it from consideration unless it is disclosed in full and I have a fair opportunity to respond.
The same letter refers to a 23 January statement from an external Orion contact, Dr Elaine Wood, that I "sent the list to a vendor". No statement or identifying particulars were given to me. The access audit shows no external transfer and the project record identifies no vendor transmission. I ask for the complete statement, its date, its source, any surrounding correspondence, and the technical evidence said to support it. If confidentiality prevents disclosure of a name, the substance must still be put to me in a way that permits a meaningful answer.
At the hearing I produced the approved Orion data-handling plan, reference ORI-DHP-2026-08, which required restricted-folder storage for test exports and required a second reviewer to confirm anonymisation. It named me as project owner but named Priyanka as data preparer and Tom as access-control administrator. Neither was interviewed. The decision letter says I "ignored the approved plan" without identifying which step I personally failed to perform or explaining the responsibilities assigned to those colleagues.
## Ground three: the finding and sanction were disproportionate
I accept the narrow factual mistake that I did not complete the second-review tick-box before the export was moved. I do not accept the finding of gross misconduct or deliberate disclosure. The file was labelled ORION_TEST_RESTRICTED, held in a group requiring staff sign-in, was not sent by email, was not downloaded externally, and was deleted as soon as the alert was raised. I self-reported at 12.03 on 11 January, forty-two minutes after placement. There was no patient harm, no external access and no previous warning.
My 2018 to 2026 record contains annual ratings of meets or exceeds expectations, including a 2026 rating of 4 out of 5. I had completed the information-governance refresher on 4 November 2026 and had raised a concern on 8 January 2027 that the test dataset's anonymisation certificate was overdue. The decision did not consider that concern, my immediate reporting, my cooperation, the division of responsibilities or the absence of actual dissemination. A final written warning with mandatory retraining, supervision and a controlled review would have addressed any established procedural failure. Summary dismissal was outside the range of proportionate responses to the facts available.
## Ground four: original decision-maker's conflict
Mr Ellis was the operational sponsor for the Orion launch and approved the project deadline that led to the hurried export. On 10 January he told me in a project call that a data delay would "cost the account". His involvement as investigator's manager, hearing chair and decision-maker created a reasonable concern that he was invested in a particular account of the event. I raised this at the hearing, but the dismissal letter says only that he was "sufficiently independent". It gives no reasons. An appeal led by an uninvolved executive is necessary to cure that defect where possible.
## Requested appeal process and remedy
Please provide before the appeal hearing the complete investigation report and attachments, the 19 January message, Dr Wood's statement or a properly reasoned redacted account, the native access and deletion logs, the hearing notes, the original scoring or sanction analysis, the data-handling plan, and the policy version in force on 11 January 2027. Please preserve all Orion project messages and audit records. I ask to call Priyanka Shah, Tom Bennett and myself, and I ask that the appeal chair interview Mr Ellis about the undisclosed material and his role.
I seek the following primary remedy: that the appeal is upheld, the dismissal is rescinded, my continuous employment is restored from 24 February 2027, lost salary and benefits are corrected, and I return to a project or equivalent role with no adverse record. If the appeal chair considers reinstatement impracticable, I ask in the alternative for conversion to a final written warning, payment of notice and contractual benefits, correction of the personnel record to state that dismissal was overturned, and a reference confirming my dates, role and responsibilities. I would accept a short supervised return, information-governance retraining and a documented review after three months as a proportionate alternative. I do not seek deletion of accurate incident records; I seek an accurate distinction between a process lapse and deliberate disclosure.
The appeal is not a new grievance about every management decision and does not waive my rights. I understand that an unfair-dismissal claim normally has a three-month-less-one-day limitation period from termination, subject to Acas Early Conciliation and statutory extensions or exceptions. Termination was 24 February 2027, so I will obtain advice about the applicable calculation rather than treating this internal appeal as an extension. I ask the company to engage with Acas Early Conciliation if contacted.
For service, I am sending this signed letter by Royal Mail Special Delivery to 7 Castle Boulevard, Nottingham NG7 1FB and by email to rebecca.holt@northtrent.example.test and people@northtrent.example.test on 3 March 2027. The email transmission record, server-delivery confirmation and any acknowledgement will be retained, and the postal tracking reference and delivery signature will also be retained. Neither route is treated as received merely because it was sent or posted. Both routes are intended to notify the company, and I ask the company to confirm which route was received under clause 14. If either mailbox or address is no longer monitored, please tell me promptly and forward the appeal to the designated appeal officer.
Please acknowledge receipt by 5 March 2027, provide the documents within seven calendar days, and propose a hearing no earlier than 12 March 2027 so that I can prepare and arrange my companion. I remain available to answer questions through the appeal process.
Yours faithfully,
Samuel Peter Okafor
Signature: Samuel Peter Okafor Date signed: 3 March 2027
Enclosures: dismissal letter dated 24 February 2027; appeal grounds and chronology; Orion data-handling plan ORI-DHP-2026-08; access-log extract; 2026 performance review; 11 January incident report.