Mrs E McNeill v Represented by: Ms J Quinn – Solicitor Glynnhill Hotel Ltd — 2023

Mrs E McNeill was employed as Financial Controller and in April 2022 altered Ms Nicholas's salary. The tribunal found that the alteration was made following Ms Nicholas's instruction, but that the claimant knew at the time that Mr Scholarios's consent was required for financial transactions and that she ought to have raised the salary change with him. It also found that when questioned on 31 October 2022 the claimant denied knowledge of the change, and that denial was not true.

The tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely conduct, and that it genuinely believed the claimant had been dishonest and had processed a salary change without proper authority. It found that the dismissal would, on the facts, have fallen within the range of reasonable responses. However, the procedure was unfair because the disciplinary invite did not specifically allege that the claimant had lied to a director, Mr Scholarios was involved at investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages, and the appeal was not handled by a more impartial senior manager as the policy and ACAS Code envisaged.

On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had 4 complete years' service, was 51, and that the agreed basic award was £3,853. It noted agreed potential notice-pay losses of £32,150.52, pension loss of £1,260 and loss of statutory rights of £400 if notice pay had been due. The tribunal found a 90% chance that dismissal would still have occurred even after a fair procedure, considered that any award would otherwise have been increased by 15% for ACAS non-compliance, but then reduced both the basic award and compensatory award by 100% for contributory conduct, leaving no financial award. The wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim was dismissed because the claimant's conduct entitled the respondent to summarily dismiss her.