A supply chain firm has been ordered to pay a former member of staff £22,000 after a court cast doubt on its claims that the ex-employee pocketed cash by secretly renting out its products
Concord Lifting Equipment (CLE), based in Wimbledon, south-west London, claimed the former member of staff had committed misconduct.
It alleged that the former employee had admitted to theft by secretly renting the company’s equipment and keeping the money.
However, Employment Judge Burns said that, based on the evidence before him, his tribunal “did not feel able to make a finding of theft” despite the former staff member having sent texts “suspects”. The judge has handed down a sentence of improper dismissal of the case.
The former member of staff, who had worked as a depot manager for 16 years, received a £400 bank transfer in September 2018 after text messages provided personal bank details to a scaffolding customer and appeared to arrange the rental of equipment.
However, the former member of staff said a £400 payment to him in 2018 was not linked to any fraudulent recruitment by the team, but was part of the £1,200 price for a hoist. He claimed a company director had arranged the sale of the hoist “for his own benefit”.
The former member of staff added that the day after receiving the money he paid the £400 in cash to the company’s director.
The employment tribunal said that “the matter is out of date, cloudy and ambiguous” because of allegations arising three years later and because of additional allegations that a director of the company had “acted dishonestly” and “therefore , was […] a contaminated source”.
It is not known if police are investigating the complaint.
According to the court’s ruling, CLE managing director Chris Kerrison, who was not the director accused by the former staff member of renting equipment for his own benefit, had “a genuine belief that the plaintiff was guilty of theft both in 2018 as until 2018. the claimant went on leave in 2020”.
However, English law and the Arbitration, Conciliation and Arbitration Service code require that an employer considering dismissing an employee for misconduct must give them an opportunity to respond to the charges and defend themselves before a decision is made. That didn’t happen.
The ruling says: “The fact that the matter is serious does not allow the procedure to be dispensed with; in this case, the need for a fair hearing is greater.”
In his evidence before the court, Kerrison said he acted as he did “to prevent [the former staff member] destroy physical or digital evidence” and “attempt to pressure or intimidate staff or customers”.
But the ruling concluded that “the entire process was unfair, primarily because it did not include any consideration, investigation or reasoned conclusion” about the former staff member’s explanation for his receipt of money in 2018.
