In person For the v Mr Stephenson - counsel — 2020

Mr R Bithell was employed as a depot manager and was summarily dismissed on 27 March 2019 for gross misconduct. The respondent alleged that he had changed Mr Harris's role without authority, permitted him to operate a forklift truck without the requisite licence, submitted a bonus and pay increase request for him as though he were still doing driving work, and engaged agency workers to cover his role. The claimant brought a single claim of unfair dismissal and argued that the real reason for dismissal was cost-cutting, that the investigation was poor, and that the procedure was not fair.

The tribunal found that the respondent had shown misconduct to be the reason for dismissal and rejected the suggestion that the dismissal was driven by a desire to cut costs. It accepted the respondent's evidence that there was no corroboration for that case and that the company had used redundancies in the past if it wished to reduce wages. The tribunal also found that the respondent had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, relying on records, employee conversations, and the claimant's own email proposing a pay rise and bonuses for Mr Harris as a driver.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that Mr Harris's driving duties had been substantially reduced, that he had been operating a forklift without a licence, and that the claimant had not obtained authorisation for the role change. It also found that the claimant's email about pay and bonuses was misleading and that his explanation at the hearing remained that Mr Harris was still a driver, which the tribunal did not accept. The tribunal found the disciplinary process substantively fair, noted that the claimant's complaint about missing minutes was unfounded, and treated the late disclosure of employee conversation notes as a technical issue that was cured before the second hearing.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. It accepted that Mr Pao had considered a final written warning but concluded that the claimant's falsification of information and inability to स्वीकार fault had damaged trust. The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed in full, and no remedy was awarded.