ESP Solicitors and Trinity Employment Law barrister, Anu Kaura, recently represented a retail betting company in a successful defence of an unfair dismissal claim brought by a former retail shop manager at the Manchester Employment Tribunal.
Background
The Claimant was employed as a retail shop manager and had been with the business since September 2011, giving him approximately 13 years' service with a clean disciplinary record.
On 11 October 2024, the Claimant and a colleague retrieved two void betting slips from a bin on the shop floor and cashed them for a total of £130. The Claimant stated in mitigation that his actions were motivated by a desire to help his colleague, who had reported a cash shortfall of £100 the previous week, and not for personal gain. However, the £130 was not applied to the shortfall but was instead concealed beneath a microwave in the shop, where it remained for approximately ten days until a security investigator attended the premises.
Following an investigation and disciplinary hearing, the Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 29 October 2024. The Claimant exercised his right of appeal. The appeal officer, who had no involvement in the original decision, partially upheld the appeal on procedural grounds relating to the scheduling of hearings and the handling of disciplinary notes, but concluded that these issues did not affect the fairness of the outcome, and the dismissal was upheld.
The Claimant, acting as a litigant in person, brought a claim of unfair dismissal.
The Respondent's Case
The Respondent's position was that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The Claimant had made full admissions throughout the process; at the investigation, the disciplinary hearing, and the appeal; accepting that he had knowingly breached company operating procedures and that his actions were deliberate. As shop manager, the Claimant held the most senior and trusted position in the shop, and his involvement in processing fraudulent void transactions represented a fundamental breach of the trust placed in him.
The Respondent acknowledged procedural imperfections, including the scheduling of the Claimant's disciplinary hearing immediately after that of his colleague at the same location, and a delay in providing the Claimant with signed hearing notes. However, it was submitted that these shortcomings did not render the dismissal unfair when viewed as part of the process as a whole, including the appeal, which genuinely engaged with the Claimant's complaints and partially upheld them.
On remedy, the Respondent argued that even if any procedural unfairness were found, a Polkey reduction of 100% or near-100% was appropriate, given that the Claimant's own admissions meant that dismissal would have occurred in any event following any fair procedure. A substantial reduction for contributory fault was also advanced on the same basis.
The Tribunal's Findings
The hearing took place over two days before Employment Judge Benson on 2-3 June 2026. The Respondent's witnesses gave evidence on Day 1 and were cross-examined by the Claimant, who was a litigant in person. The Claimant gave his own evidence and was cross-examined on Day 2.
The Tribunal found that the claim of unfair dismissal was unsuccessful and that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
Applying the Burchell test, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had a genuine belief in the allegation of breach of standard operating procedures, supported by reasonable grounds. The Claimant had admitted from the outset that he had breached the procedures and acknowledged in cross-examination that his conduct was a serious breach capable of amounting to gross misconduct.
On procedural fairness, the Tribunal considered each of the Claimant's complaints and found that none took the process outside the band of reasonable responses. In particular, the Tribunal found that a meeting between the appeal investigator and the dismissing manager was an entirely appropriate step in the appeal process; the delay in providing disciplinary hearing notes was unfortunate but did not render the process unfair; and the scheduling of hearings was not a deliberate act. The Tribunal also found no evidence of any retaliatory motive or bias on the dismissing manager’s part.
The Tribunal held that it could not be outside the band of reasonable responses to dismiss for deliberate and dishonest conduct where the Claimant was handling cash in a position of trust. The Tribunal also noted that a more junior colleague involved in the same incident was also dismissed, and inconsistency of treatment was not pursued as a point by the Claimant.
Anu Kaura was instructed by Philippa Roberts, Associate Solicitor at ESP Solicitors. Philippa said:
“This case is an important illustration of the value of thorough preparation and a willingness to acknowledge procedural imperfections candidly. Where the substantive case is strong and an employer has conducted a genuine investigation and appeal, the Tribunal will assess the process as a whole and is unlikely to find a dismissal unfair simply because of minor procedural shortcomings. The key to success was the Respondent's transparent approach - conceding learning points where appropriate whilst maintaining its position that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.”
Anu added:
“One of the interesting aspects of this case was what the Tribunal didn't need to decide. It wasn't necessary to make findings on the Claimant's motive or whether he personally benefited - the conduct itself was enough. Deliberately processing void slips in a cash-handling role crossed the line, regardless of intent. This is a valuable reminder for employers: if the conduct is serious enough and the employer's process is fair, the Tribunal will focus on what was done, not why. This was a case where thorough preparation by the solicitors and credible, consistent evidence from the Respondent's witnesses made all the difference. The Tribunal could see that the investigation and disciplinary process had been conducted fairly and in good faith. Employers need to show they acted reasonably and took the process seriously. Here, the Respondent did exactly that, and the outcome reflected it.”