Ms B Suwalska, Consultant For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant worked as a Front Line Manager at the Respondent's Wellingborough site from 2 January 2007 until her dismissal on 4 April 2019. The site had been given redundancy notice in February 2019 because the operation was closing, but the tribunal held that those redundancy arrangements were not the reason for the dismissal under appeal. The case arose after the claimant's husband admitted dishonest ordering of company items, including items valued at just short of £10,000, and the claimant reported that matter to management.

The Respondent investigated the claimant's own order of cosmetic items placed on 14 February 2019. The tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that CCTV, tracking information, the weight of the parcel, the Yodel delivery charge and the delivery signature showed that a large box delivered to the claimant's home on 16 February 2019 contained more than the five cosmetic items ordered. It rejected the claimant's account that she had not received the box and found, on the balance of probabilities, that she knowingly took possession of unpaid-for items in that box together with the ordered cosmetics.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct within s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the Respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, applying British Home Stores Limited v Burchell. It held that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the Respondent to summarily dismiss her without notice. The wrongful dismissal claim was therefore also dismissed. No monetary award was made.