Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (unauthorised access to CIS Searchlight system) based on reasonable grounds (IAT audit report showing access from claimant's account to her brother's records), following a reasonable investigation. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given a live final written warning for similar conduct. Despite some procedural imperfections in the investigation phase, the overall procedure was fair.
Withdrawn by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 24 June 2024 and formally dismissed by the tribunal.
Withdrawn by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 24 June 2024 and formally dismissed by the tribunal.
Claim in respect of notice pay withdrawn by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 24 June 2024 and formally dismissed by the tribunal.
Claim in respect of unpaid holiday pay withdrawn by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 24 June 2024 and formally dismissed by the tribunal.
Facts
The claimant, employed by DWP since 2001 as an administrative officer, was dismissed for gross misconduct on 28 June 2023. In November 2020, she received a final written warning (valid until April 2023) for 26 unauthorised accesses to CIS Searchlight records of individuals at her address. In December 2022, while the warning was still live, an Internal Abuse Team report identified she had accessed her brother's records via Searchlight. She denied the access throughout investigation, disciplinary and appeal processes. The decision maker found the audit evidence proved the access occurred from her account, no alternative explanation was provided, and dismissed her summarily given the live final written warning for similar conduct.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds (the IAT audit report), following a reasonable investigation. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses because the misconduct occurred during a live final written warning for similar conduct, and no exceptional mitigating circumstances existed. Despite some procedural flaws (e.g. investigator not producing formal report), the overall process was fair.
Practical note
A live final written warning at the time misconduct occurs can justify dismissal even if the warning expires before the sanction is imposed, provided the employer's process satisfies the Burchell test and minor procedural imperfections do not undermine overall fairness.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305086/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Administrative Officer
- Service
- 22 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister