Mrs M Balloch v EE Limited — 2019

The claimant was summarily dismissed from her role as Store Manager after the respondent investigated ADS transactions in which proof and identification processes had not been followed. The tribunal found that the respondent's dismissing manager genuinely believed that the claimant had deliberately bypassed the ADS/proofs policy and instructed staff to do so, and that she had seriously failed in her management responsibilities in relation to applying and cascading those policies.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because aspects of the investigation and procedure concerning the allegation of dishonest manipulation and instruction of staff were outside the range of reasonable responses. In particular, the respondent did not put the claimant's account to employee witnesses after obtaining adverse statements and did not provide her with the underlying transaction paperwork, including at the appeal stage. Other criticisms, including the failure to interview further employees and the scope of the November and December 2017 document review, were not upheld as unreasonable.

The tribunal found a 75% chance that the respondent would have fairly dismissed the claimant had a fair procedure been followed, so the compensatory award was to be reduced on Polkey grounds. It also found that the claimant's admitted failures to understand, apply, check and cascade the relevant policies were blameworthy and contributed to the dismissal, warranting a further 60% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had deliberately and dishonestly manipulated procedures or instructed staff to breach them. Although her failure to ensure the proofs policy was applied was a serious dereliction of duty, the tribunal concluded it was not so grave and weighty as to justify summary dismissal.