Claimant v William Hill Organisation Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct (gross negligence and falsifying records over three days, 27-29 April 2024). The respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation (Burchell test). The decision to summarily dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of repeated procedural failures in a cash-heavy business, the claimant's admission he had 'not learnt his lesson' from a previous similar incident, and loss of trust and confidence. The claimant's mitigating factors (long service, unsubstantiated medical conditions) were properly considered but did not render dismissal unreasonable.
Tribunal found the claimant was guilty of conduct so serious as to entitle the respondent to dismiss without notice. Over three days he admitted failing to follow essential financial control procedures in a cash-based business, breaching express contractual terms (the Disciplinary Policy which stated deliberate falsification and gross negligence resulting in loss would lead to summary dismissal). This conduct also breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent was contractually entitled to dismiss summarily, and did so for that reason.
Facts
The claimant was a Team Leader at a William Hill betting shop employed since October 2017. Over three days (27-29 April 2024) he repeatedly failed to follow mandatory cash handling and security procedures: he did not process SSBT tickets through the till (leaving £899.75 unaccounted for), did not complete required daily business checks, safe/insert/cash declarations, falsely ticked a form confirming checks had been done, and incorrectly processed gaming machine tickets to balance the till. £200 remained unaccounted for. He admitted his failures, describing himself as 'lazy' and said he had 'not learnt his lesson' from a similar incident four years earlier. He was dismissed for gross misconduct on 17 May 2024 after investigation, disciplinary and appeal hearings.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. Summary dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of repeated failures over three days in a cash-heavy business and the loss of trust and confidence. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant's admitted conduct breached express contractual terms prohibiting gross negligence and falsification, and amounted to a repudiatory breach entitling the employer to dismiss without notice.
Practical note
Repeated breaches of essential cash control procedures over several days by a trusted Team Leader in a cash-heavy betting business, admitted by the employee and described by them as 'lazy', can justify summary dismissal even with long service and a clean record, particularly where the employee admits not having learned from a previous similar incident.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6008321/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Team Leader
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No