EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100752/2025 Hearing held in Aberdeen on Monday August 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie A Myszkowska v St. Andrews Parish Church , Church of Scotland , Inverurie — 2025

Agnieszka Myszkowska worked as a cleaner for St. Andrews Parish Church, Church of Scotland, Inverurie from 26 August 2016 until her dismissal on 24 January 2025. The tribunal found that, in or around May 2024, CCTV cameras were installed for security purposes and that the respondent later monitored the CCTV over a one-month period from 13 November 2024 because it was concerned that the claimant was not working her contracted 20 hours per week. Reverend Irvine concluded from the CCTV that she had worked 13 hours and 53 minutes over a period when she had been paid for 84 hours.

The claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting, provided with the CCTV stills, the table of entry and exit times and the disciplinary procedure, and gave a written statement saying, among other things, that she had suffered bad health over the previous months and had not told the respondent because she feared losing pay. At the disciplinary hearing on 24 January 2025 she said she could not repay any money because she was on benefits. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the dismissal decision was made by Reverend Irvine and Mrs Pawson after a short adjournment, and that the claimant was then dismissed for gross misconduct.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal found that the decision-makers genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. Although the CCTV did not cover every location where the claimant worked, the tribunal held that the investigation was still adequate when viewed alongside the claimant’s admission that she had not fulfilled her contractual hours because of ill health and had not informed the respondent.

The tribunal also found that the disciplinary process was reasonable, that the claimant had been given the relevant documents and an opportunity to respond, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It concluded that summary dismissal was justifiable and that the claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.