Mr J Jotangia, counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant brought claims for unlawful deduction of wages and unfair dismissal arising from dismissal on 12 March 2019. On the wages claim, the tribunal held that it was presented out of time under s.23 ERA 1996 and that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the three-month limit. It also said that, even if the claim had been heard, the claimant could not have shown a contractual entitlement to enhanced company sick pay because the scheme was expressed to be discretionary and non-contractual.

On the facts, the respondent investigated a series of parking fines on the claimant's company car, use of the fuel card by another person, mileage submissions and expense claims. The claimant was interviewed twice, given documents, and represented at the disciplinary hearing and appeal. She advanced explanations including that her husband had used the car and fuel card, but the dismissing manager found the allegations proved in substantial part and treated the overall pattern as gross misconduct.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. It rejected the claimant's arguments about predetermination, lack of particulars, failure to interview further witnesses and inconsistent treatment, and held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The appeal officer reviewed the decision, did not uphold the appeal, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.