Case 2405512/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Moss v Asda Stores Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405512/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Moss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent concluded that he had falsified exception reports for 19 December 2018, 28 December 2018 and 6 January 2019 by recording earlier start times than the times at which he had arrived. The tribunal found that the claimant had entered times earlier than those at which he could be sure he had arrived and that this amounted to falsifying company records under the respondent's disciplinary procedure.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments that he had been authorised to arrive flexibly or to record the disputed times by rounding up. It also found no evidence of bias by the manager who conducted the rehearing, found that a colleague's exception report was materially different, and held that any issue about the presence of a People Manager at a 19 March 2019 meeting made no difference in the case.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation, including a reinvestigation after the appeal stage. It concluded that dismissal, although it could be considered harsh in light of the claimant's personal circumstances, fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent fairly dismissed the claimant, so the complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(1) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Beedell v West Ferry Printers Limited
- Foley v Post Office and Midland Bank PLC v Madden
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- band of reasonable responses
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.