In person For the v Ms J Patel (Trainee Solicitor) — 2019

The Claimant, a recycling operative at the Respondent's Lewes site, was dismissed after the Respondent received an anonymous tip in January 2019 that CPUs were being stolen. The Respondent searched the washroom/cloakroom area, installed CCTV directed at the lockers, found CPUs in a jacket pocket on 28 and 29 January 2019, and identified the Claimant and a colleague as the only employees seen near the jacket. The Claimant was suspended, interviewed, and then dismissed on 4 February 2019 for gross misconduct; his dismissal was upheld on appeal by letter dated 25 February 2019.

The tribunal found that the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant was responsible for attempting to steal CPUs and that the reason for dismissal fell within section 98(2) ERA 1996. Applying the Burchell approach, it held that the Respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief and carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal rejected the Claimant's criticism that the Respondent should have questioned other people who entered the washroom, finding it reasonable that the Respondent did not do so because they did not go near the jacket.

On procedure, the Claimant's main complaint was that the CCTV evidence had not been sent to him before the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal accepted the Respondent's explanation that it had been advised not to do so for data protection and GDPR reasons, and it found that decision to be within the band of reasonable responses. It also noted that the Claimant was given the chance to view the CCTV at the disciplinary hearing but chose not to do so.

The tribunal further found that any procedural unfairness was corrected on appeal because the Claimant was shown the CCTV footage during the appeal hearing and the appeal officer upheld the dismissal. Taking the gravity of the allegation and the finding that gross misconduct was a reasonable characterisation and sanction on these facts, the tribunal held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.