In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, D McCall, worked for Holland and Barratt Retail Limited from 29 April 2000 until her dismissal in October 2021, when she was store manager at the Palmers Green branch. The tribunal recorded that the dismissal followed findings of inaccurate time recording and overbooking of holidays, and that the claimant brought an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It found the reason for dismissal was conduct.

The tribunal found that the respondent had investigated the allegations over a substantial period. It accepted that the claimant had previously received training on the Heart system and had been warned in October 2020 after an earlier disciplinary process that included a timecard issue. In 2021, the respondent investigated holiday-booking records and CCTV/timecard discrepancies, and found that the claimant had booked more holiday than her entitlement and had recorded hours that did not match the time she was shown on CCTV to have been in store. The tribunal found that she knew she had to ask someone to amend holiday bookings and had not done so.

On procedure, the tribunal found that the claimant was invited to the disciplinary hearing, the date was rearranged once, and the respondent was entitled to proceed in her absence on 12 October 2021 when she did not provide medical evidence before the hearing that she was unable to attend. The tribunal accepted that an occupational health report had said she was fit to attend a meeting, and it also found that any procedural defect was cured on appeal because Darsh Chand held a further hearing, carried out further investigation, and issued a detailed appeal outcome on 3 January 2022.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell line of authority, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It also found that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, taking into account the proven holiday and timekeeping issues, the prior warning and training, and the appeal-stage review. The claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.