- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Ms G Boorer — 2021

The claimant, Mr M Momber, brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by Kwik Fit (GB) Limited. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Phil Keeler, Mr Martin John and Mr Simon Carroll. The respondent’s case was that the claimant had carried out work on a relative’s BMW without authorisation, had used company parts without payment, had booked those parts to other vehicles’ invoices, and had falsified clock records for Mr Shane Barrett. The claimant denied wrongdoing and said the work had been authorised and that Ryan Etherington, not he, had made the disputed entries.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was for misconduct and that this was the genuine reason for dismissal. It accepted that Mr John and Mr Carroll did not have any other reason for dismissing the claimant, and that Mr Keeler’s role in the earlier investigation did not alter the fact that he was not the dismissal decision-maker. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that Mr Keeler bore animosity towards the claimant because of mental health issues, finding no evidence to support that allegation.

Applying the Burchell questions and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the investigation was reasonable, because Mr Keeler obtained the relevant information and interviewed the relevant people. It also held that it was open to Mr John and Mr Carroll to conclude, on the material before them, that the claimant had committed the misconduct alleged. The tribunal placed weight on the evidence about the glow plugs, including Mr Keeler’s evidence that the parts produced by the claimant had been purchased for cash on the morning of the meeting, which supported the conclusion that the claimant had attempted to mislead him.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for an employee with management responsibility who had been found to have engaged in fraud, theft of company property, and further fraud to disguise those matters. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.