In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a Technical Engineer, was dismissed on 18 September 2020 after the respondent investigated his stock ordering and related handling of equipment and supplies. The tribunal found that there had been a clear increase in the volume of stock ordered from November 2019 to May 2020, including ordering levels that were markedly above those of four other engineers used as comparators. It also found that a substantial amount of ordered stock remained unaccounted for after the respondent’s investigation, and that the claimant was unable to give a clear explanation for what had happened to it.

The tribunal accepted Ms Winchester’s evidence that the respondent carried out a thorough and procedurally fair investigation and disciplinary process. It found that the claimant had been given opportunities to explain the ordering patterns and the missing stock, but his explanations were found wanting. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent checked the claimant’s explanations about garage storage, alleged returns, duplicate stock, and a garage burglary, and rejected the claimant’s case that the investigation was inadequate or that the dismissal was premeditated.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996, including the principles in Burchell and Post Office v Foley, the tribunal found that the respondent held a genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The claimant also brought a breach of contract claim for notice pay. The tribunal rejected that claim because it found the respondent was entitled to dismiss him summarily for gross misconduct, so he was not entitled to notice pay. The breach of contract claim was dismissed.