G Woolfson (sitting alone) Miss G McGregor v Sportswift Limited (Trading as “Card Factory”) — 2018

The claimant was employed by Sportswift Ltd at the Maryhill store and was dismissed on 18 January 2018 after an investigation into a banking discrepancy relating to 13 December 2017. The respondent concluded that she had breached the Cash Handling Policy, including by signing a pay-in slip for money she had not prepared, completing paperwork late or inaccurately, carrying out cash lifts when not the designated keyholder, and failing properly to complete store cash-handling records. The tribunal noted that the allegation of dishonest conduct was removed before dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief based on the claimant's own admissions and the documentary records. It found the investigation reasonable overall, even though some matters relied on at dismissal had not been expressly put to the claimant in the disciplinary process, including the absence of a legible banking-bag serial number, the failure to sign the Operations Diary at handover, and the final safe-check issue. The tribunal treated those as procedural flaws but held they were not significant enough to make the dismissal unfair when viewed overall.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, together with the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It relied in particular on the claimant's admissions that she had signed paperwork without checking it, had completed a pay-in slip the following day for money not prepared by her, had signed the float check sheet despite not inputting the figures, and had carried out cash lifts when not the designated keyholder. The tribunal also took account of the importance of strict compliance with the respondent's cash-handling procedures.

The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The tribunal said that even if it had found unfair dismissal because of the procedural flaws, it would not have made a compensatory award because of the claimant's own conduct, would have found a 100% Polkey deduction, and would not have ordered reinstatement. Those points were hypotheticals only and no monetary award was made.