Mr K O’Donnell v 1) Barclays Bank UK plc 2) Barclays Bank plc — 2020

Mr O'Donnell was employed as a Wealth Manager and was dismissed after an investigation into his DBBA work. The core issue began with Client A, where the respondent found a CRM note recording a meeting and fee discussion that Client A's son said had never happened and for which he said no letter had been received. The respondent then reviewed other DBBA files and concluded that records for 13 clients, B to N, showed meetings and suitability work on 28 June 2017 that could not be supported by diary, phone, visitor, or other system records.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief that gross misconduct had occurred and that belief was based on a reasonable investigation. It accepted that the respondent was entitled to treat the Client A matter as serious, to look at the wider DBBA files, and to conclude that the apparent pattern across the records was not explained by mere administrative error. It also held that it was reasonable not to interview the support staff or the clients, because the systems showed that the claimant himself had created the records and the respondent was entitled to rely on its own audit trail.

Applying section 98(2)(b) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities cited, including Burchell, W Weddel & Co Ltd v Tepper, Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones, Taylor v OCS Group Ltd and Sharkey v Lloyds Bank PLC, the tribunal held that summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It rejected the claimant's workload and procedural unfairness arguments, found no evidence that the earlier hospitality tickets issue influenced the dismissal, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also dismissed the second respondent from the case because the claimant had transferred to the first respondent and no claim was made out against Barclays Bank plc.