Mr A Keir v Represented by: Mr N Cunningham - Representative Santander UK plc — 2022

Mr Keir worked as a Customer Advisor for Santander UK plc and was dismissed on 12 August 2021 after a disciplinary process arising from a customer compensation chat on 19 May 2021. The respondent had posted guidance after the 15 May 2021 system outage saying that Customer Advisors could offer up to £50 compensation for inconvenience caused by the outage. The tribunal recorded that Mr Keir sought compensation in an online chat, initially referring to a product price increase and then to an alleged failed furniture purchase, and that the adviser increased the payment from £25 to £50.

The respondent treated a later internal concern raised by the adviser as a potential dishonesty issue and investigated through fact-find meetings, a grievance process, a disciplinary hearing before Mr Iain Anderson, and an appeal before Mr Niall McCurdy. The disciplinary allegations were that Mr Keir had attempted to deceive the customer service department by falsely claiming financial detriment on 15 May 2021, had used knowledge of the complaints process to obtain a higher payment, and had fundamentally breached trust and confidence. The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed him for conduct under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996.

Applying Burchell and the wider reasonableness test under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that Mr Anderson genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It relied on the transcript of the 19 May chat, the claimant's own accounts in the fact-find meetings, and the technical context around the outage. The tribunal accepted Mr Anderson's conclusion that there were too many anomalies and changes in position for the claimant's account to be credible, and it held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's criticisms of the process. It found no unfairness arising from Mr Smith conducting the investigation, no basis to treat the complaint-handling chat as entrapment, and no unreasonable delay in holding the first fact-find meeting. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and did not need to determine remedy, Polkey, contributory conduct, mitigation, or reinstatement issues.