R. White of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Pulsford worked for Heathrow Truck Centre Limited from 23 August 2016 until his dismissal on 22 August 2019. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct: the respondent believed he had worked on a third-party vehicle, his brother-in-law's vehicle, in the workshop without permission while he and another employee were both clocked to a customer job, which resulted in the customer being overcharged. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in that conduct, based on CCTV, witness evidence and the claimant's admissions.

The claimant argued that the dismissal was inconsistent with the treatment of another private-vehicle incident on 2 August 2019. The tribunal rejected that comparison, finding material differences: the other vehicle belonged to a member of staff, the claimant was the senior technician on duty, the other employee's involvement was limited, and there was no overcharging of a customer in that case. The tribunal also preferred the claimant's evidence that he and his colleague worked on the vehicle for 30 to 45 minutes, rather than the respondent's case that they worked on it for about four hours.

The tribunal found some procedural unfairness at the investigation stage because the formal disciplinary procedure was not followed immediately and the claimant was not given advance notice or time to prepare for the initial investigation. However, it held that those defects were cured at the disciplinary hearing, where he had time to prepare, amend the investigation notes and present his case. It also rejected complaints about the missing time card, the date errors in correspondence and the timing of the written dismissal letter, and concluded that a reasonable employer could dismiss in these circumstances. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because summary dismissal was not a breach of contract and no payment in lieu of notice was due.