Mr Lee Strutt v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Limited — 2022

Mr Lee Strutt was employed by Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Limited as a transport supervisor from 22 June 1992 until his dismissal on 31 December 2020. His role included carrying out random vehicle searches and recording the searches in a log, as well as overseeing driver training and health and safety training. After a performance improvement plan in October 2020, discrepancies were identified in the search log and in training records, and the respondent suspended him, investigated, and then commenced disciplinary proceedings.

The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed Mr Strutt had committed misconduct, including falsifying vehicle search logs and training records and failing to follow company procedure. It held that those beliefs were based on reasonable grounds, relying on the contemporaneous notes from the performance review, the investigation meeting, the documentary records, NET2 access records, driver evidence, and the inconsistencies in Mr Strutt's own explanations over time. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on the 5 November vehicle search issue and accepted that the changing explanations undermined the claimant's account.

The tribunal also found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation in all the circumstances. It noted that the process followed the ACAS code and the respondent's disciplinary procedure, that the claimant was told the allegations and given disclosure, that he had the opportunity to respond at each stage, and that independent managers conducted the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. Although the claimant complained that CCTV footage was not personally reviewed by the dismissing officer, the tribunal held that this did not make the overall procedure unfair.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal without notice was within the band of reasonable responses. It took into account the seriousness of the misconduct as found by the respondent, the regulated nature of the business, the gross misconduct provisions in the disciplinary policy, and the fact that Mr Strutt's length of service was considered on appeal. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not well founded and was dismissed.