Mrs T Safa (Lay Representative, the Claimant’s mother) For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr J Safa worked for William Hill Organization Limited and was dismissed after an investigation into a £500 SSBT credit loaded on 9 August 2018 without a matching EPOS till entry, followed by a voucher print and later EPOS transactions recorded as two £500 transfers to the till, a £250 transfer back to the safe, and a £500 SSBT payout. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had also failed an age verification visit on 28 July 2018, but found that the dismissal was for theft-related misconduct rather than the AV matter.

The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence from the investigating and disciplining managers and from the security investigation that the CCTV, EPOS logs and SSBT records were genuine and internally consistent. It rejected the claimant’s case that the records had been fabricated or that a conspiracy involving security staff or a manager explained the transactions, describing those assertions as implausible and far-fetched. It also found the investigation and disciplinary process to be fair, including the claimant being shown CCTV footage and given an opportunity to respond.

Applying Part X ERA 1996, s98(2)(b), s98(4), the Burchell principles, J Sainsbury plc v Hitt, and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that Mr Norman had an honest belief on reasonable grounds, formed after a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had taken or facilitated the taking of £500. It found that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal added that, even if dismissal had been unfair, it would have reduced compensation by 100% because the claimant was responsible for culpable conduct that caused his dismissal.