Mr M Browning v Automobile Association Developments Limited — 2022

The claimant, a long-serving Performance Leader, was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after the respondent concluded that he had manipulated his roster for financial gain, misappropriated time, and breached trust and confidence. The tribunal found that the respondent had dismissed him for misconduct, which was a potentially fair reason, but that material parts of the disciplinary process were outside the range of reasonable responses.

On the pre-booked overtime allegation, the tribunal found that the respondent had not adequately investigated the claimant's repeated explanation that his line manager had instructed him to book overtime because he and his team were busy. The tribunal also found that, after the 21 October 2020 instruction restricting new overtime bookings, the claimant had mainly moved existing bookings rather than creating new ones, apart from one additional hour which he said was an error. The allegation of breach of trust and confidence was found to have been unclear and inconsistently handled, including because matters from a separate allegation on which there was said to be no case to answer were relied on under that heading.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent could reasonably view the claimant's arrangement of management and roadside shifts as misconduct, because he had admitted that financial benefit formed part of his thinking. However, dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses in light of the flawed process, the lack of clear guidance on allocating shifts, the claimant's long service and clean record, and the nature of the misconduct that remained. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, with a 50% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards for contributory conduct and no Polkey reduction.

For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had in fact committed gross misconduct. It found that the respondent had not proved gross misconduct: the overtime issue was not established as gross misconduct, the roster issue amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct, and the other matters such as driving during breaks, minor timekeeping issues and personal use of the van did not individually or cumulatively amount to gross misconduct. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore succeeded.