Mr M Akinrin v National Car Parks Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr M Akinrin, was employed by National Car Parks Limited as a Customer Service Assistant and was dismissed without notice with effect from 2 December 2019. The tribunal found that the dismissal arose from evidence generated by his proxy-card records, patrol logs and worktime record sheets, which showed a pattern of late arrivals, early departures and entries in records that did not match the access-card data. The claimant advanced explanations including traffic, clock differences and local arrangements with colleagues, but the tribunal found those explanations not credible and accepted that the respondent genuinely believed he had committed gross misconduct.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, had reasonable grounds for its belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It found the investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages taken together were sufficient, that the claimant had multiple opportunities to explain the discrepancies, and that the change in allegations from poor timekeeping/not following procedures to falsification of company records and dereliction of duties was justified by the investigation findings. The tribunal also held that the disciplinary and appeal procedures were overall fair, including the opportunity to be accompanied at the appeal hearing.

The race discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegations that Mr Tak told Black employees to do cleaning and painting tasks that were not asked of employees of his own race, finding instead that all Customer Service Assistants were required to carry out such tasks as needed. It also rejected the claimant's allegations about the 7 and 14 November 2019 meetings, finding no inappropriateness in Mr Thamothermeillay's or Mr Tak's conduct and no evidence that Ms Magee or Mr Buckley were influenced by Mr Tak. For the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal found as a fact that the claimant had falsified company records and was therefore guilty of gross misconduct under the applicable policies, meaning the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the claimant's November 2019 salary was paid in full and the tribunal found no deduction on 14 November 2019.