EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Employers conducted covert video surveillance on the Claimant, when he was for good reason suspected of playing squash during work time, whilst claiming payment for being at work at the time. That confirmed he was seen at the sports centre on a succession of Thursdays when other material showed him to have claimed to be at work, and when he had no permission from his employer to be at the centre. The Employment Tribunal held him in fundamental breach of contract so as to justify summary dismissal, and rejected his claim for race discrimination. However, it upheld a claim for unfair dismissal (though awarding nil compensation, for contributory conduct) because of the Tribunal’s distaste for the employer’s use of covert surveillance, its view that art. 8 was engaged and broken in doing so, and the employer’s lack of awareness of its obligations (none of which were actually relevant) under the Data Protection Act.
The ET found the investigation unreasonable, essentially because it was more thorough than it needed to have been, and because of its view that a person defrauding his employer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of his acts when doing so.
These views were rejected on appeal as wrong, and misplaced, and the appeal allowed with a substituted finding that the dismissal was not unfair.
Langstaff P, J
[2013] UKEAT 0501 – 12 – 1604
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511054