Judgment approved by the court Vaultex UK Ltd v Bialas ground 1 of the appeal asserts that the tribunal nevertheless committed the error of substituting its own opinion of the appropriate sanction for that of the respondent. Ground 2 asserts that, on the question of whether the sanction of dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, the tribunal reached a conclusion which was perverse or not within the range of reasonable decisions open to it. 5. These grounds were directed to proceed to this full hearing by the President, Eady J, who also directed that the appeal should be heard by a judge and two lay members. This is the unanimous decision of the three of us. The Tribunal’s Findings of Fact and Decision 6. After the section of the tribunal’s reasons relating to the law, and under the heading “Findings of fact”, the first subsection was headed “The Respondent’s Policies”. It began: “22. The Respondent takes equality, diversity, and inclusion (‘EDI’) work seriously. Its approach has been to roll out campaigns nationally throughout its business, to open forums for its workers to discuss EDI issues, and to embed EDI into its processes. 23. The Respondent’s Equality Diversion and Inclusion Policy states that ‘A person may be harassed even if they were not the intended ‘target’. For example, a person may be harassed by overhearing insensitive jokes that they find offensive.’ The Policy goes on to say, ‘If the investigation concludes that the complaint is well founded, the harasser will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with our disciplinary procedure’. 24. The Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure provides examples of gross misconduct which includes ‘breach of Vaultex’s Anti-harassment and Bullying and Equality and Diversity Policies.’ It further states that ‘Cases of Gross Misconduct may, irrespective of any previous warnings, result in dismissal without notice where it is sufficiently serious’ (my emphasis).” 7. The tribunal went on to find that the respondent requires staff to undertake regular EDI training. The tribunal accepted from the claimant that prior to the pandemic the respondent operated in-person sessions which involved mentoring and the ability to ask questions. From the pandemic onwards, this was delivered digitally and was more of a tick-box exercise. 8. The tribunal continued as follows: © EAT 2024 Page 4 [2024] EAT 19