in person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked as a prison officer at HMP Wormwood Scrubs from 8 June 2018 until his dismissal on 30 April 2021. The tribunal found that an investigation into another officer's mileage claim led to scrutiny of the claimant's bed watch-related expense claims. It accepted that the claimant's claims were examined because they appeared excessive in volume and value, and found that he had inflated mileage claims, overclaimed Dartford crossing charges, claimed parking expenses without receipts, and claimed travel time through the expenses system rather than through payroll. The tribunal also found that he used the expenses system to claim pay at £22 per hour and avoid tax, describing that as a 'loophole'.

On the direct race discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was a black African/Nigerian and that the five officers investigated were Nigerian or of Nigerian origin, but it did not find facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It held that the claimant had not shown that officers Kerr and Todd were in the same material position, that there was no evidence they had behaved in the same way as the claimant, and that the claimant's own challenge was really to the reasonableness of the process rather than proof of race discrimination. The tribunal found that the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal were pursued for non-racial reasons and dismissed all three allegations of direct race discrimination.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found that Governor French honestly believed the claimant had acted fraudulently, that he had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was one a reasonable employer could have carried out. It held that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and that there was no material breach of the ACAS Code. For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct was dishonest and repudiatory and that it had fundamentally undermined mutual trust and confidence, so summary dismissal was justified and no notice pay was due.

On the respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract, the tribunal awarded only the sums linked to overclaimed mileage and Dartford tolls. It accepted the respondent's calculation that the claimant claimed 17,618 miles against an assessed actual mileage of 14,533, producing 3,085 excess miles at 25p per mile, and awarded £771.25. It also found that the claimant had overclaimed Dartford crossing fees and owed £92, bringing the total counterclaim award to £863.25. The tribunal did not award recovery of the tax-related sum or parking costs.