Mrs C Leader v Ashton Pioneer Homes Limited — 2021

Mrs Leader was dismissed after the respondent investigated a pattern of Proteus clocking adjustments and deletions over a number of years. The tribunal found that there had been 226 adjustments/deletions in total, including a substantial number of lunchtime deletions, and that the employer’s case was that this had enabled her to accrue time and paid leave to which she was not entitled. The claimant accepted that she had made the entries but said they reflected work done over lunch and out of office activities, and she also raised procedural concerns about the investigation and disciplinary process.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed the conduct alleged, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that it had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It relied on the investigation meetings, the review of the claimant’s Outlook calendar and work notebooks, the interviews with colleagues, the disciplinary report, and the appeal process. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s contention that the dismissal was in reality a cost-cutting exercise.

On the claimant’s procedural criticisms, the tribunal found that any late provision of the disciplinary policy did not make the process unfair, that the respondent was not obliged to call all requested witnesses, and that the further appeal-stage enquiries did not require the panel to reopen the process for another round of representations. It also found that the employer was entitled to draw a line as to the extent of its witness enquiries and that any error by a witness about the claimant’s lunch-time visits would not have made a material difference to the outcome.

The tribunal concluded that summary dismissal for fraudulent timekeeping was within the range of reasonable responses, noting that fraudulent timekeeping was listed in the respondent’s disciplinary policy as gross misconduct. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal expressly stated that its decision was not a finding that the claimant was in fact guilty of the alleged conduct, only that the respondent was reasonably entitled, on the evidence before it and after a reasonable investigation, to reach the conclusion it did.