Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Ingram v Bristol Street Parts
Employment Appeal Tribunal

Issues

1. The Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations (“the Regulations”)
2. Disciplinary proceedings
3. Procedure

Facts

Ms Ingram had worked for the employer Bristol Street Parts (“Bristol”) for more than 17 years as an accounts clerk. The employer’s system for deliveries meant that the delivery drivers had to collect cash for each delivery made, which was handed into Ms Ingram for banking. In October 2005, she advised management that £900 had gone missing from a drawer. During the employer’s investigation, Ms Ingram admitted that the cash had disappeared over a period of time, and that she had left the cash as bait for the thief. She had admitted that she had covered up the missing money through the accounts.

Disciplinary proceedings were commenced relating to her covering up of the thefts and her admitted improper accounting.

At the tribunal hearing, it was found that there had been failures in the procedure used by Bristol, because it had failed to produce all the evidence it was relying upon in advance of the hearing. This was in breach of the Regulations and therefore the tribunal found that the dismissal had to be considered automatic unfair dismissal. However, the tribunal made a 100% reduction for contribution on the part of the employee.

Bristol appealed the tribunal’s finding of automatic unfair dismissal.

Decision

The employer’s appeal was successful. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the issue of whether Bristol had complied with Step 2 of the disciplinary procedure in failing to submit all its evidence. The EAT found that it was not necessary for Ms Ingram to see all the invoices in order to deal with the complaint against her. Ms Ingram had understood the nature of the complaints against her and could deal with the issues placed before her. The statutory procedures did not require employers to disclose all the evidence against employees, merely sufficient material to enable the employee to respond. Therefore, Ms Ingram was not automatically unfairly dismissed.

Comments

The Regulations only provide a basic standard for employers to comply with, and compliance with the Regulations does not mean that the dismissal will be fair overall. This will vary depending on the nature of the conduct involved.

Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.