Mr N Aouragh v Harrods Ltd. — 2019

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct and that the claimant accepted both that conduct was the potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the respondent genuinely believed he had committed the misconduct in question. The tribunal held that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief and had carried out a reasonable investigation, viewed as a whole including the appeal process.

The findings concerned four watch sales transactions in May and June 2018 that were suspicious, with one later confirmed to be fraudulent. The tribunal found that the claimant failed to carry out required security checks, did not follow the respondent’s policies and procedures relating to Rolex sales, rewards cards and transaction security, and showed lapses in judgement and diligence when processing high-value sales. The tribunal also found that some aspects of his account lacked credibility, including points contradicted by CCTV, card records and rewards history.

Applying the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal concluded that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses given the fraud risks in the Rolex boutique, the value of the transactions, the claimant’s failure to apply required checks, and the resulting loss of trust and confidence. On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct, including serious breach of cash handling procedures, serious negligence causing actual or potential loss, and dishonesty in the disciplinary process, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice.