Mr D Reed v Rex Goldsmith Limited Heard: by CVP — 2022

Mr Reed worked for Rex Goldsmith Limited as a fishmonger from 19 February 2013 until 14 September 2021. After John Huff raised an allegation that the claimant had been placing customer cash into his pocket, the respondent reviewed CCTV and invited the claimant to a disciplinary meeting on 14 September 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was told the meeting was disciplinary, attended with a companion, and was dismissed at the end of the meeting for gross misconduct.

The tribunal reviewed CCTV covering 4, 6, 13, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 27 August 2021 and found repeated instances where the claimant put customer cash into his pocket rather than the till. It found the transfers were often made when colleagues were distracted or after the claimant had looked around the shop, and described the conduct as suspicious. The tribunal preferred Mr Huff's evidence about a £45 refund receipt recovered from the bin and accepted that the receipt was likely used to cover a discrepancy. It rejected the claimant's explanation that he was building a market float or splitting change, and found that he had in fact been stealing money.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It found no material procedural unfairness in the absence of a separate investigatory meeting, the limited advance disclosure, the short disciplinary meeting, or the fact that the appeal was not pursued. The unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were dismissed. The tribunal also said that, had unfair dismissal been found, it would have applied 100% Polkey and contributory reductions because it had found the claimant was stealing. It granted the respondent permission to withdraw its counterclaim so that it could be re-issued in the county court.