Mr M Davies v Wirral Borough Council — 2022

Mr Davies was employed by Wirral Borough Council as an Environmental Health Officer and was dismissed on 1 October 2020 for gross misconduct. The allegations arose from two food hygiene visits: the Refreshment Rooms on 18 December 2018 and Girtrell Court on 21 August 2018. The tribunal found that he did not undertake an inspection at either premises, that he uploaded a handwritten and signed inspection form for the Refreshment Rooms despite not having carried out the visit, and that the documentation for Girtrell Court made it appear that an inspection had taken place. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that emails in March and August 2018 had told him not to 'dummy score' closed premises and to follow a different process.

The respondent investigated the matter in stages, first through fact-finding, then through a formal investigation by Mr Atkins, and later through further enquiries by Ms Newman before the disciplinary decision. The tribunal recorded that the claimant gave shifting accounts about whether he had visited the sites and whether the mileage claims were accurate. It also noted that he put forward mitigation about work pressure, personal difficulties, health issues, and his wife's operation, but the tribunal found those matters had been considered during the process.

Ms Newman upheld allegations of falsified documents and false mileage claims and dismissed the claimant summarily for gross misconduct on 30 September 2020. An appeal panel chaired by Mr Ball heard the matter afresh over three sessions, made further enquiries, and unanimously upheld dismissal. The panel found that each allegation amounted to gross misconduct in itself and that the allegations taken together also amounted to gross misconduct. It considered the claimant's length of service and clean disciplinary record, but decided dismissal was reasonable. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell principles, and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, had reasonable grounds for that belief after a thorough investigation, and followed a reasonably fair procedure. It rejected the claimant's complaints about delay, post-hearing enquiries, alleged guidance to the investigator, and alleged enforced isolation. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no compensation was awarded.