In person For v Ms L Usher, Solicitor — 2018

The claimant worked for the bank for about 14 years and was dismissed summarily on 13 December 2018 after a disciplinary process concerning unauthorised absence and alleged dishonesty. He had travelled to India on 25 August 2018 with only one day of holiday left for the year, and his return flight had been booked for 18 September. He later returned to the UK on 20 October and went back to work on 28 October. The tribunal noted that the dismissal decision was upheld on appeal on 7 March 2019.

The tribunal accepted that the disciplinary officer, Mr Bhudia, was independent, had not predetermined the outcome, and took account of the relevant evidence before deciding on summary dismissal. It accepted that the written reasons sent on 7 January 2019 were delayed, but found that the claimant already knew the decision on 13 December 2018 and was not prejudiced. It also found no evidence that union membership influenced the decision.

On the merits, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had medical certificates covering much of his absence, but found that there remained legitimate doubts about the genuineness and timing of the evidence, including the lack of a return ticket for 28 August, gaps in the medical certificates, and the unsuccessful attempts to contact the doctor in India. The tribunal found that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to show that he genuinely intended to return to work on 29 August or that he had been unable to travel for the whole period claimed. Applying the British Home Store v Burchell 1978 tests, it found that the respondent honestly believed the claimant had been dishonest, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable. It therefore held the dismissal fair under s.98 ERA 1996, and dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim because the respondent was contractually entitled to summarily dismiss.