Claimant v EE Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt of gross misconduct (abusing employee discount system, accessing colleague's account, using vouchers improperly, and ordering for onward sale via a business), held on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The procedure followed was fair and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses despite the claimant's 23 years' service and clean record. The tribunal accepted the respondent's conclusion that there had been an irreconcilable breakdown in trust.
Facts
The claimant was employed by EE Limited as a Customer Advisor for nearly 23 years with a clean disciplinary record. He was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent discovered he had made 35 orders of high-value electronics (PS5s, phones) through the BT Shop using employee discounts improperly: he breached voucher terms by combining vouchers with employee discounts, exceeded limits on exclusive offers by asking colleagues to order on his behalf, accessed a colleague's account to place orders, and linked orders to a business name (Almaalik Ltd) that resold electronics, where his son worked. The claimant admitted most facts but argued products were for family and friends at cost, not for profit.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt of gross misconduct, held on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The procedure was fair and complied with the ACAS Code. Despite the claimant's long service and mitigation (bereavement, health issues), dismissal for a breakdown in trust fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Practical note
Long service and a clean record will not save an employee from dismissal for gross misconduct where the employer reasonably believes there has been an irreconcilable breakdown of trust due to dishonest abuse of employee benefits, even if the employee argues no personal profit was made.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2403658/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- EE Limited
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Advisor
- Service
- 23 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No