Mr D Burgess v Cabot Carbon Limited — 2021

Mr Burgess worked for Cabot Carbon Limited as a process technician from January 2014 until his dismissal on 16 July 2020. He brought a claim of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent said it dismissed him for misconduct, namely falsification of company documents, failure to follow company values, and intent to commit fraud in relation to a holiday-related expense claim.

The tribunal found that Mr Burgess had attended ethics and values training and understood the basic concepts of Cabot's values and the conduct expected of him. When the shutdown period changed, he was asked about holiday arrangements. The tribunal found that he described a UK break as booked and paid for, later produced a banking-app invoice showing a payment to Hall & Jenkins Leisure Ltd, and only after questioning accepted that the amount related to caravan ground rent rather than payment for a holiday. It found that this discrepancy led to a validation exercise and investigation.

The tribunal held that the respondent's management had a genuine belief that Mr Burgess had committed misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances. It found that the key individuals were interviewed, the claimant was told of the allegations, given documents and notice of meetings, and given opportunities to respond and appeal. It rejected the claimant's case that the process was unfair because other managers were not interviewed, because he had insufficient time to prepare, or because his illness, Covid-related absence, or the February 2020 workplace incident explained the decision to dismiss.

Applying section 98(2) and section 98(4) of the 1996 Act and the Burchell approach to misconduct dismissals, the tribunal concluded that misconduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that summary dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy award was made because the claim failed.