Mr W Wong v Chan Brothers Limited — 2021

Mr Wong worked as a salesman for Chan Brothers Ltd from July 2011 until his summary dismissal on 6 February 2019. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not automatically unfair for whistleblowing purposes. It did not accept that he had made the alleged protected disclosure about vehicle trackers in 2017, and it held that his March 2018 attempt to raise annual leave concerns at a staff meeting was not a qualifying disclosure because the words used lacked sufficient factual content and specificity and he did not reasonably believe the matter was in the public interest.

The tribunal held that the respondent dismissed him because it genuinely believed he had committed gross misconduct by manipulating invoices over a period of time. It accepted that he admitted making changes to invoices and that the respondent had carried out a reasonable investigation for section 98 ERA 1996 purposes. On that material, the tribunal found dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It also rejected the claimant's case that a manager had taught him to falsify invoices or that the practice was condoned across the workforce.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the procedure was unfair. The tribunal held that the claimant was effectively dealt with for theft and bribery as well as invoice falsification, although those matters had not been clearly set out as disciplinary charges. It also found that the alleged £1000 stock shortfall had not been properly discussed or investigated, that extra invoices were taken into account after the disciplinary hearing without being provided to the claimant, and that the decision-maker consulted other managers before deciding the outcome. The tribunal found these defects were not cured on appeal.

The tribunal nevertheless found that a fair process would have led to dismissal in any event, given the duration and extent of the invoice manipulation and the claimant's continuing conduct after being warned on 17 December 2018. It held that the claimant was at fault for the invoice irregularities and said there should be a 75% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards for contributory conduct. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the same conduct was held to amount to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. No final remedy figures were set in this judgment, and any section 38 Employment Rights Act 2002 issue about written particulars was left for a remedy hearing if needed.