Mr J P Wiggans v Albert Farnell Limited — 2025

Mr J P Wiggans was employed by Albert Farnell Limited from 1 January 2013 and was summarily dismissed on 30 April 2024 for gross misconduct after a used-car policy form dated 8 December 2023 was presented in March 2024 bearing another manager’s signature. The tribunal found that the respondent’s reason for dismissal was conduct and that the dismissing officer genuinely believed the claimant had been guilty of the alleged misconduct.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s belief was based on reasonable grounds. AR investigated the policy form, checked signature samples, spoke to PM, KR, JH and DJ, and concluded that the signature most closely resembled that of a former manager who had left before the form was signed. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant gave inconsistent accounts about who had signed the form and what he had done with it.

However, the tribunal held that the investigation and disciplinary process were not fair. The claimant was not invited to an investigation meeting, there was little further inquiry into the disputed facts raised by the claimant, and the matter was not investigated by an independent manager. The disciplinary hearing did not cure those defects. Although the respondent’s handbook treated fraud and falsification of records as gross misconduct, the tribunal found that dismissal without notice was not within the band of reasonable responses because a lesser sanction was not properly considered and the claimant’s long service, clean disciplinary record, stress and bereavement were not given adequate weight.

The tribunal also found that the claimant’s refusal to pursue the appeal prevented the respondent from curing the procedural defects, but that did not change the finding of unfair dismissal. On remedy, the tribunal recorded that there was substantial contributory conduct and indicated reductions of 75% to the basic award and 25% to any compensatory award for ACAS non-compliance, but it did not determine final sums in this judgment. It also held that Polkey was not practically applicable because the procedural defects were so substantial that it was not possible to say whether the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway.