In person For the v Mr Pacey - Counsel — 2022

The claimant, Mr Ward, was dismissed after selling a disused oil tank for £230 and receiving cash from the purchaser. He said he had been told to clear the area, believed he could dispose of the tank, and put the money in a safe in the estates office. The respondent said he had sold school property without consent and had not handed over the proceeds. The tribunal found the tank was on site at the relevant time, that the money was most likely placed in the safe, and that no one from the respondent checked the safe until after the appeal process had finished.

Applying the conduct dismissal framework under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303, the tribunal found there was not a reasonable investigation and not a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that the claimant had stolen the money. It was troubled that Mr Anderson, the principal, treated the claimant's shocked reaction when confronted with the CCTV as evidence of guilt, and that he regarded Mr Beard's evidence as having changed when the statement remained materially the same. The tribunal also found there was no specific finance-policy training shown, and that the purported warning of 5 May 2021 was not proved on the balance of probabilities.

The tribunal held that Mr Anderson should not have chaired the disciplinary hearing because he was involved in the underlying facts, including whether he had given consent for the tank to be sold. It also found the appeal process did not cure the earlier defects. The appeal governors had been sent an email, apparently on Mr Anderson's instructions, asking them to minimise questions and describing the claimant as dishonest and manipulative; the tribunal regarded that as inappropriate and prejudicial. It also found Mr Anderson had inappropriately influenced the appeal process and had seen the appeal minutes when he should not have done so. The dismissal was therefore unfair. The tribunal did not determine contribution or the breach of contract claim at this hearing, and listed them for a future remedy hearing.