Case 2300367/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lee Ellwood v Coca-Cola European Partners Great Britain Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300367/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lee Ellwood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lee Ellwood had worked for Coca Cola European Partners Great Britain Limited since 20 October 1997 as a Technical Representative. The tribunal found that Tech Reps were required to use the ServiceMax application to record jobs, times and locations live and accurately during the working day, and that Mr Ellwood understood how to use it and knew that records were meant to be entered in real time.
In October 2018 an issue arose when a manager checked a fuel card call and found that Mr Ellwood had recorded himself as being at a customer site in a different part of London, although the customer said he had left earlier. That led to an investigation of his ServiceMax records, which identified discrepancies including entries for sites he had not attended or could not access, and examples of overstated time. At the investigatory and disciplinary meetings he admitted falsifying records and, by the end of the disciplinary hearing, accepted that he had claimed overtime to which he was not entitled.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent carried out a proper investigation and had reasonable grounds for believing that Mr Ellwood had acted dishonestly. It also found that the disciplinary hearing was adjusted in light of his reported depression, including advice from Occupational Health and a postponed hearing, but that it was still reasonable for the manager to require him to attend if he was fit and to answer questions himself. The respondent took account of his length of service and health issues, but concluded that the dishonesty went to the heart of the employment relationship and that trust had been lost.
The appeal was not upheld. The tribunal held that the dismissal was a reasonable sanction in all the circumstances and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.