Mr J Carroll v Hartlepool Borough Council — 2020

Mr J Carroll was employed by Hartlepool Borough Council as a highways inspector and was summarily dismissed on 8 March 2019 after an investigation into unexplained gaps in his working day, the way he recorded work on Confirm, and discrepancies between tracker data and flexi-time sheets. The respondent alleged abandoning duties, failure to follow reasonable management instruction, deliberate falsification of records, and conduct bringing the organisation into disrepute, although the latter allegation was not upheld by the investigator and was not part of the final dismissal reasoning.

The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct rather than capability. It found that the claimant was an experienced inspector who understood his duties, that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, and that Ms Scarr's investigation was reasonable even though some steps were not taken, such as checking CCTV or interviewing Mark Carroll. The tribunal held that the evidence gathered, including tracker records, Confirm data, emails and the claimant's own notes, reasonably supported the conclusion that there were significant unexplained periods during the working day and that the claimant had not provided concrete explanations for them.

On fairness, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and that the procedure was fair. It accepted that the respondent allowed the claimant to respond at two investigation meetings, at the disciplinary hearing, and on appeal, and it did not find the appeal delay to have caused unfairness. The tribunal also held that summary dismissal was a reasonable sanction in light of the trust issues raised by the unexplained time and inaccurate completion of time sheets.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal applied its own findings of fact and concluded that the claimant's conduct amounted to a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence and therefore a repudiatory breach of contract. It found substantial unexplained time during the working day together with inaccurate time sheets suggesting work had been recorded as being done when it had not been, and held that this entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice.