Mr P Lloyd v Marston (Holdings) Limited and 2 others — 2019

The tribunal found that Mr Lloyd was employed by Marston Holdings Limited as an on-street audit and fraud investigator and that the respondent had policies on the intranet, alongside memoranda and contractual terms covering internet use, software installation and confidentiality. It found that he had received training on information security and data protection, but had chosen not to read the relevant policies and procedures. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s witnesses as credible and found Mr Lloyd’s evidence contradictory and unreliable.

The tribunal found that Mr Lloyd had installed and used the TOR browser on company equipment without telling the respondent, had sent company documents to his private email addresses, had installed software without IT authorisation, and had used netplwiz.exe when attempting to change access settings. It also accepted the 7Elements investigation material, which identified the TOR browser, pirated media files, downloaded anti-virus software, confidential emails sent to personal accounts, and the use of netplwiz.exe. The tribunal rejected Mr Lloyd’s case that Lee Lovatt had filtered or falsified the evidence, and found that the investigation carried out by Lee Lovatt and the independent IT work commissioned from 7Elements were reasonable.

At the disciplinary hearing on 29 May 2018, David Fenwick considered Mr Lloyd’s written defence and oral explanations, including his points about lack of training, lack of notice, and mitigation. The tribunal found that Fenwick held a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, that misconduct had been proved, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The appeal, heard by Deborah Cooper, was also found to be fair and compliant with the ACAS Code of Practice; she reviewed the relevant documents, considered the claimant’s appeal and grievance, and upheld the dismissal.

The tribunal rejected Mr Lloyd’s procedural complaints, including complaints about the investigation meetings, note-taking, accompaniment, and the handling of the written defence. It found that the claimant was aware an investigation was taking place, that accompaniment was not required at the investigatory stage, and that any alleged procedural issues were in any event cured or did not amount to unfairness. Because the unfair dismissal claim failed, the tribunal did not award any remedy. It also recorded that the unlawful deduction claim failed because no evidence was offered, and the notice pay complaint was unsupported.