R Dennis of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that on 3 February 2018 Mr Chadwick pinned work on the internal system for Ryland House at Croydon and for Sanderstead, marked the work as progressing, and recorded himself as being on site, when he was in fact at home for at least part of the day. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the relevant MOT work required an on-site presence and that the claimant could have contacted his manager or control if he was unwell or unable to attend. The claimant accepted in the disciplinary process that he should have gone to Sanderstead, that he did not have permission to work from home, and that he had not told anyone he was working remotely.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that conduct was the reason for dismissal and that the respondent had a reasonable belief, based on a substantial investigation, that the claimant had committed misconduct. It found that the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal were procedurally fair overall, including consideration of further documents at appeal, and that the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct with notice was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also noted that the claimant admitted the misconduct and was not able to explain his actions in a way that displaced the respondent's conclusion that trust had broken down.

On the s.15 Equality Act claim, the tribunal found that the 18 July 2017 written warning did not influence the 2018 dismissal to any significant extent. It further found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled at the material time, because he had previously raised mental health issues openly, had shown improvement by early February 2018, and did not raise any mental health explanation during the investigation or hearing until it was raised by others. Even if knowledge had been established, the tribunal found that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of maintaining a healthy, safe and supportive workplace, and that the dishonest conduct for which he was dismissed was not something arising in consequence of disability.