Claimant v Royal Harwich Yacht Club
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the club genuinely believed the claimants had committed gross misconduct by falsifying timesheets. The investigation was thorough and reasonable, including examination of alarm logs which revealed discrepancies between claimed and actual hours. The claimants' explanations that they had authority to claim extra hours for off-site tasks were not credible and contradicted by the club manager. Dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses for sustained dishonest conduct involving breach of trust, particularly as C1 was line manager to C2 and C3.
The tribunal found no prima facie case of race discrimination. The claimants were Romanian, Polish, and Portuguese respectively and were the only non-British nationals in the team. However, the tribunal found the dismissals were motivated solely by the timesheet discrepancies, not nationality. The comparators cited (British staff) were in materially different circumstances and there was no evidence they engaged in similar misconduct. The claimants' own evidence was inconsistent and their grievances contained admittedly false allegations of racial slurs and blackmail, undermining credibility. The club had previously tried to retain the claimants when they resigned, demonstrating no animus based on nationality.
Facts
Three employees of a yacht club (Romanian bar manager, Polish chef, and Portuguese chef) were dismissed for gross misconduct after alarm log data revealed systematic discrepancies between their recorded timesheet hours and actual time on premises. The club discovered that the claimants had been claiming hours that did not match when the building alarm was activated/deactivated. The claimants argued they had authority to claim extra time for off-site tasks like shopping and menu planning, and that the dismissals were racially motivated as they were the only non-British nationals in the team. They submitted grievances alleging racial slurs and blackmail, which they later admitted were false.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the club had genuine belief in misconduct based on cogent evidence from alarm logs showing sustained timesheet falsification over three months. The investigation was thorough and the claimants' explanations (that they had authority to claim off-site hours without specific notation) were not credible. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The race discrimination claims failed as there was no prima facie case: the comparators were in different circumstances, the club had previously tried to retain the claimants, and the claimants' own evidence (including admittedly false grievance allegations) lacked credibility.
Practical note
Systematic timesheet fraud over a sustained period, particularly where the employee is in a position of trust, will almost certainly justify dismissal even for long-serving employees, and spurious discrimination allegations supported by admittedly false grievances will fatally undermine a claimant's credibility.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300596/2024
- Decision date
- 4 January 2026
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- C1: Bar and Catering Manager; C2: Chef; C3: Chef
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No