Mr S Frankland v LC Longtown Limited — 2022

Mr S Frankland was employed by LC Longtown Ltd from 23 March 2018 as a part-time sales adviser on a 0.6 contract. He did not receive a written statement of employment particulars. He also used a vehicle provided by the respondent and later raised disputes about commission, a company car tax liability, dismissal, and alleged protected disclosures. He had originally pursued sex discrimination, but withdrew that claim before the final hearing.

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him for conduct after comparing timesheets with vehicle trackers and concluding that he had knowingly submitted false timesheets. Applying s.98 ERA 1996, the Burchell authorities and the band of reasonable responses test, it held that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct, that the procedure was fair overall, and that dismissal was not unfair. The claims under s.103A ERA 1996 and s.104 ERA 1996 were also dismissed: the tribunal held that the alleged fraud and grant-related allegations were not shown to amount to protected disclosures, and that they did not explain the dismissal or the appeal outcome.

On commission, the tribunal found that the scheme paid £500 per robot once installed and paid for, and that commission belonged to the sales adviser who concluded the sale and was named on the contract. The claimant first claimed £9,529.29 on 26 November 2020 and was paid £2,458.99 on 3 December 2020; the tribunal accepted that a further £250 remained due, but rejected any wider contractual entitlement. His company car claim failed because the vehicle was for his sole use and there was no agreement that the respondent would bear any tax liability. Separately, because the respondent had been told in April 2020 that no written particulars had been provided and still did not remedy the omission, the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay of £1,412.31 under s.38 Employment Act 2002.