The claimant alleged unfair dismissal by the Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF) for which he had been Director of Communications. An essential part of the job was working with the diocesan bishop and the media in relation to publicity. In early 2006, the claimant left his wife and began another relationship. He had canvassed that issue with the bishop. In November 2006, a press release was issued on behalf of the bishop apparently claiming, inter alia, that he had given guidance to the claimant and his new partner and that the claimant's future with the DBF was in jeopardy. The claimant submitted a grievance and a meeting took place in January 2007. The claimant lodged an appeal in March 2007, at which he read out a statement accusing the bishop of lying in the November press statement. A disciplinary meeting took place in June 2007 and the claimant was dismissed. He appealed and was reinstated. A ‘review meeting’ was held in September 2007, which was, in fact, a disciplinary meeting at which the parties discussed the claimant remaining in post. It was concluded that the necessary relationship of trust had broken down between the bishop and the claimant and he was dismissed. The employment tribunal had to decide whether the DBF had acted reasonably in treating the breakdown in the relationship as justification for the claimant's dismissal. The tribunal was concerned that, in June 2007, at a private meeting between a representative of the DBF and the bishop, the bishop had expressed the view that the relationship had broken down and that the claimant's position was untenable. This was never disclosed to the claimant. The tribunal further concluded that the investigation into the allegations against the claimant was inadequate. The main concern had arisen out of the accusation that the bishop was a liar. No steps had been taken to canvass this issue with the bishop. The consequence was that there was no adequate evidence before the DBF's representative upon which he could conclude that the claimant's assertion was untrue. In those circumstances, the tribunal concluded, any reasonable employer would have to proceed on the basis that the claimant was correct and that the bishop had, indeed, lied. A problem had clearly arisen in the relationship between the bishop and the claimant. If the reason for the problem was the fact that the claimant had complained of the wholly improper treatment by the bishop and the DBF had not undertaken sufficient investigation to establish otherwise, the tribunal concluded that the complainant's dismissal was unreasonable. By agreement, a sum of £22,000 was paid in settlement. [JG]