Claimant v Openreach Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had shown the reason for dismissal was conduct (falsifying timesheets, using manager's login, allocating completed tasks). The disciplinary officer Mr Wilson had conducted a thorough investigation, had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of fraudulent activity, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The appeal by Mr Higgins was properly conducted. The dismissal was fair.
The claimant claimed unpaid notice money. The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct, including fraudulent activity, constituted a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. Therefore no notice money was due and the breach of contract claim was dismissed.
Facts
The claimant was a Patch Lead with 25 years' service. An anonymous Speak Up complaint alleged he falsified timesheets, used his manager's login, allocated work fraudulently, and bullied colleagues. A detailed investigation by BT Security examined login records and van tracking data. The claimant did not contest the underlying factual evidence but claimed he acted on his manager's instructions. He was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing and unsuccessful appeal.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The disciplinary officer Mr Wilson conducted a thorough and reasonable investigation, had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of fraudulent conduct including falsifying timesheets for personal gain, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The appeal was properly conducted and reasonably dismissed. The breach of contract claim for notice pay failed because the misconduct justified summary dismissal.
Practical note
Even long service will not save an employee from fair dismissal where there is clear evidence of systematic fraudulent timekeeping, particularly where the employee held a position of trust and showed no remorse, and where thorough investigation supports the employer's reasonable belief in guilt.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200005/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Patch Lead
- Service
- 26 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister