Case 2403658/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bux v EE Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403658/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bux
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent investigated purchases made through BT Shop using employee discounts, discount vouchers, and colleagues' accounts. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely the respondent's belief that the claimant had seriously breached its Standards of Behaviour policy and that trust had broken down.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, held on reasonable grounds after a fair and reasonable investigation. It relied on the claimant's admissions that he had ordered goods for others, used voucher codes with employee discounts, accessed a colleague's account with permission but without her being present, asked colleagues to order limited products for him, and sold on some products. The tribunal found that it was reasonable for the respondent to reject parts of the claimant's explanation in light of the volume of orders, the use of the Almaalik name, and the connection with electronic goods resale.
The tribunal concluded that the respondent followed a reasonably fair procedure, including investigation meetings, a disciplinary hearing, disclosure of relevant materials, representation, written reasons, and an appeal. It found that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses, notwithstanding the claimant's long service, clean disciplinary record, and personal mitigation. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant raised unfair dismissal only. The judgment records that references to wrongful dismissal, failure to provide written terms, and discrimination were not pursued by amendment, so they were not adjudicated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
- Foley v Post Office
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Burdett v Aviva Employment Services Ltd
- Britobabapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- Chubb Fire Security Ltd v Harper
- Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd
- ILEA v Gravett
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.