Daniel Kibblewhite v Mitie Limited — 2021

The claimant was dismissed for stated gross misconduct arising from discrepancies between timesheets, PDA entries and vehicle tracking records, and from private use of a company van. The claimant said he had followed instructions from managers or supervisors about recording time, and that other engineers had received similar instructions. The tribunal did not accept that there was evidence that the dismissal was pre-decided or that the claimant was victimised for claiming overtime.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not carry out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. In particular, the appeal manager did not ask other engineers in the claimant's team what instructions they had been given, did not investigate the related disciplinary case of Mr O'Hanlon, and treated evidence from former engineers too narrowly. The tribunal also found that the claimant was not provided with key evidence obtained after the disciplinary and appeal meetings, including interviews with managers and emails relied upon, so he was not able to comment on it.

The tribunal concluded that these failings were significant enough to make the dismissal unfair. It found that the company van issue was not the key reason for dismissal and, on the evidence, would not alone have reasonably resulted in dismissal. The claim for unpaid overtime, pleaded as unlawful deductions or breach of contract, had been withdrawn and was dismissed on withdrawal. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing if not settled.