SIR N Blair v AH UK Animal Health (PVT) Ltd T/A Covetrus — 2025

The only live claim was unfair dismissal. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from the respondents’ witnesses, including the investigating officer, the dismissing officer and the appeal manager. It found that the claimant, an Internal Sales Executive, was dismissed after discrepancies were identified between Salesforce call entries and Vodafone mobile records. The claimant initially said in the investigation that she had recorded emails as telephone calls, later said the calls had been made, and accepted in evidence that at least one entered call to Thistle Vets could not have been made because the number was a fax line.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal found that misconduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It accepted that the respondents genuinely believed the claimant had misrepresented her Salesforce records, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief based on the comparison data, the investigation meeting, the examination of the handset and the appeal process, and that the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances without requiring forensic analysis of the phone. The tribunal also held that the decision to treat the conduct as gross misconduct and dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the dismissal was really because she had queried her pay. It found that the respondents had already agreed in principle to increase her salary to £27,000, with a further move to £30,000 in 2026, and that the investigation into the call discrepancies arose for other reasons. On procedure, it held that she had sufficient notice of the allegations, was given relevant documents before the disciplinary hearing, had the opportunity to respond, and received a fair appeal before an independent manager. It also found the grievance process had no relevance to fairness because the claimant said it caused her no prejudice. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the tribunal did not go on to assess remedy.