Ms R Porter v Represented by: Mr D M Hutchison, Solicitor Student Loans Company Limited — 2020

Ms R Porter was employed by Student Loans Company Limited from 1 June 1996 until her summary dismissal on 29 March 2019. She was Asset and Configuration Manager, responsible for asset management, process documentation, and annual audits. The tribunal found that internal audit reports in 2014 and 2018 identified weaknesses in asset control, that recommendations were allocated to the claimant and agreed by her, and that she did not put in place the required annual audits or effective procedures. After an alleged theft of laptops from the Glasgow office in 2018, an investigation found that more than £100,000 of assets was unaccounted for in the sample tested.

The tribunal accepted Ms Currie’s evidence that she believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct based on gross negligence in failing to manage the asset register, implement agreed recommendations, escalate resourcing issues, or flag matters on the risk register. It found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation: Ms Love interviewed relevant witnesses, the claimant was given opportunities to respond at investigation and disciplinary hearings, and Ms Currie considered further material, including the claimant’s email of 15 March 2019 and additional documents. The tribunal preferred the respondent’s witnesses where there was conflict with the contemporaneous paperwork.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996, including the Burchell test and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, and acted reasonably in treating the misconduct as sufficient reason for dismissal. It also found that Ms Currie considered lesser sanctions, the claimant’s length of service and clean disciplinary record, but concluded that dismissal was appropriate. The appeal, chaired by Ms Smillie, was also found to be a reasonable process.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It added that, even if gross misconduct had not been established, the dismissal would alternatively have been fair for some other substantial reason, namely breakdown of trust and confidence. Because the tribunal upheld the dismissal, it did not proceed to remedy and made no award of notice pay.