Mr Douglas Millar v Douglas Park Limited — 2017

Mr Douglas Millar was employed by Douglas Park Limited from 8 March 2010 as a Warranty Administrator in the Service Department at Hamilton. In early July 2016 the respondent identified £1,613.06 of customer cash payments that had been received by service advisers but not received by Finance. The respondent investigated by reviewing cash summary sheets, daily cash received sheets and CCTV footage, and by speaking to staff and customers. Mr Millar was suspended after initial meetings on 16 and 19 July 2016, and he was later invited to a disciplinary hearing on the basis of alleged gross misconduct.

The tribunal applied section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach to misconduct dismissals. It accepted that the reason for dismissal was misconduct, which was a potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(b). The key issue was whether Douglas Park Ltd had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable and whether it had reasonable grounds for its belief that Mr Millar had taken the cash payments. The tribunal preferred Mr Menzies' evidence and found that he had reviewed the paperwork, witness statements and CCTV, and had not predetermined the outcome.

The tribunal accepted that the CCTV footage from 29 June 2016 and 8 July 2016 showed Mr Millar carrying out the cash procedure, placing an envelope in his drawer, not handing it to Mr Kennedy when he entered the office, and later removing an item from the drawer and putting it in his bag. Although the footage did not clearly show the item, the tribunal held that it was reasonable for Mr Menzies to conclude that the banking process related to the missing Customer D and Customer J payments, and that Mr Millar had not given a plausible explanation for what he put in his bag. It also held that the wider inference that Mr Millar was responsible for the other missing cash payments was not unreasonable.

The tribunal concluded that the investigation, disciplinary hearing and dismissal all fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. It noted that Mr Millar was told the allegations, received the documents he requested, was accompanied at the hearing, was given the chance to respond and challenge the evidence, and had a right of appeal that he did not exercise. The dismissal was therefore found fair, and the tribunal did not go on to determine remedy.