Best used for
Procedural fairnessReasonable investigationAppeal handling
Use this workflow when the research question fits these evidence themes and can be checked against selected sources.
Guided workflow
Unfair dismissal process review
Compare investigation, consultation, warnings, appeal, and reasonableness patterns across selected tribunal decisions.
Tribuno provides Employment Tribunal research assistance and legal information only. It does not provide legal advice, representation, or guaranteed outcome prediction.
Workflow contract
When to use this workflow
Each public workflow has a defined research role, explicit boundaries and an expected output shape. It is a starting point for source-cited research, not a route to a legal conclusion.
Not for
Outcome predictionFinal case conclusionUnchecked witness evidence
These boundaries keep the workflow away from prediction, unsupported conclusions and unreviewed live facts.
Output shape
Process-focused research memo with a comparable-decision matrix, ACAS context and source-check caveats.
Source inputs
What the workflow needs before drafting
A useful workflow starts with focused facts and selected sources. Public examples remain illustrative; real workspace output should use selected decisions and promoted Lens passages.
Dismissal chronologyInvestigation recordsSelected ET comparablesACAS process Lens
Source trail
Unfair dismissal source trail example
The sample source trail shows the kind of source-family separation this workflow should preserve before any memo wording is trusted.
| Ref | Source family | Research role | Trace shown | User check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | ET decision | Fact-pattern comparable | Used to compare how a tribunal discusses the employer's investigation scope and the treatment of disputed witness evidence. | Read the source reasoning and confirm whether the allegation type, investigation length, and available evidence are close enough to the live question. |
| S2 | ET decision | Fact-pattern comparable | Used to inspect whether an internal appeal corrected earlier procedural weaknesses or simply repeated the original decision. | Check who heard the appeal, what material was considered, and whether the tribunal treated the appeal as curing or compounding defects. |
| S3 | ET decision | Distinguishing or adverse comparable | Included so the report does not only show favourable-looking material. It gives a contrast for evidential gaps and reasonableness language. | Confirm whether the factual gap is genuinely comparable and whether the tribunal's criticism turned on evidence, timing, policy, or witness credibility. |
| L1 | ACAS Lens | Workplace-practice context | Promoted as guidance context for investigation, hearing, and appeal steps while keeping it separate from ET comparables. | Check the current ACAS source text and avoid treating guidance as if it were a tribunal decision. |
Workflow path
A practical sequence for controlled early-access use.
01
Profile the chronology and reason for dismissal.
02
Search for ET decisions with similar procedural facts.
03
Review ACAS, statutory and procedure Lens passages.
04
Draft a cautious memo from selected sources.
Sample prompt
The workflow starts with a narrow research question
Example research question
What procedural fairness themes appear in comparable unfair dismissal decisions involving investigation quality and appeal handling?
Expected output
What Tribuno should produce
The useful output is a source-cited research view, not a definitive answer to the user's legal position.
Comparable decisions
Selected ET decisions should be compared by facts, process, evidence and reasoning, with source links visible.
Lens context
Source Lens findings should be shown separately and promoted only when useful for the memo context.
Research memo
The memo should include a caveat, source labels, limitations and a compact traceability section.
Review the sample before requesting access.
The sample shows the expected structure and caveats without requiring workspace access.