Mr Dan-Musa v Sky Retail Stores Limited — 2022

Mr Dan-Musa was employed by Sky Retail Stores Limited as a Sales Advisor from 1 June 2011 until his dismissal for conduct on or around 19 January 2021. The tribunal recorded that the only claim before it was unfair dismissal. The parties accepted that the claimant had been dismissed and that the respondent relied on conduct as a potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The dismissal followed an Insight Report from the respondent's Compliance Team about seven customer accounts on 6 November 2020. The respondent considered the accounts suspicious because the DocuSign records showed first names only, the sales occurred in a cluster on one day, two customers said they had not signed anything, and all seven sales fell through. The claimant denied signing on behalf of customers and challenged the process, including an allegation that the decision was predetermined because he had been part of a collective grievance in 2018.

The tribunal found that the allegations were put to the claimant orally and in writing during the investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages, and that he was given opportunities to explain himself. It rejected the contention that there was evidence of a predetermined decision or conspiracy. The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and an adequate disciplinary and dismissal process, including an appeal by a regional manager from another area.

Applying section 98(4), Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods and J Sainsbury v Hitt, the tribunal held that the respondent had a reasonable belief, on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had committed gross misconduct by signing on behalf of customers. It also held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, despite the claimant's length of service. The claim for unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.