Mrs B Cullinan v National Car Parks Limited — 2019

Mrs B Cullinan was employed by National Car Parks Limited as a pre-book adviser in the pre-book team. The tribunal found that the respondent operated a refund process requiring manager authorisation for refunds over £25 and a separate card log record of refunds. It found that the claimant had been sent Laura Anderson’s 3 February 2019 email explaining the £25 limit and warning that failure to follow the process could lead to disciplinary action, and that she knew the recording requirements were important to the business.

The tribunal accepted that concerns about refund handling arose after an email on 30 March 2019 about a refund of £86.50 without a corresponding card-log entry. It found that the investigatory interview notes and disciplinary notes were accurate records of what was said, including the claimant’s acknowledgements that she had forgotten to seek authorisation and that some refunds might not have been recorded. The investigation report recorded 69 refunds processed by the claimant and only 26 card-log entries, and the disciplinary hearing proceeded on allegations of failure to follow procedure, potential loss of revenue, and loss of trust.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that dismissal was really for bullying, being “managed out”, or some other improper motive. It found no evidence that the decision-maker, Mr Fadden, bore her malice or that past disputes, her personal injury claim, or other earlier workplace incidents drove the dismissal decision. It concluded that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had knowingly breached important operating procedures, including by authorising 12 refunds above the £25 limit and failing to make the required card-log entries.

Applying the misconduct fairness test and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the investigation and disciplinary procedure were fair and that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. It also held that it was reasonable for Mr Fadden to regard the claimant’s comments about “coasting” and not wanting to work there as showing a risk of future non-compliance. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed in full, and no compensation was awarded.