Dismissal was upheld as fair where the employer formed a genuine and reasonable belief in serious misconduct following a fair disciplinary process.

The Complainant submitted that his dismissal had been unfair and disproportionate given his more than eight years of service and previously strong performance record. He denied responsibility for alleged unauthorised modifications to customer records and asserted that technical faults could have caused the disputed changes. He maintained that the Respondent had failed to provide adequate technical evidence demonstrating that he personally made the alterations. The Complainant argued that the Respondent had not properly considered significant mitigating factors, including his medical condition, a recent bereavement, and ongoing family care responsibilities. He further raised concerns about occupational health referrals and suggested that organisational changes within the company may have influenced the disciplinary outcome. The Complainant contended that the disciplinary investigation and appeal process had been flawed and that dismissal represented an excessive sanction in circumstances where alternative explanations for the system changes had not been fully explored.

The Respondent submitted that the dismissal had been justified on substantial grounds arising from serious misconduct. It explained that the investigation had been initiated following customer complaints concerning unauthorised alterations to records. As part of the investigation, system audit logs were examined and technical support teams were consulted. The Respondent stated that the audit logs directly linked the changes to the Complainant’s unique employee credentials and demonstrated that the modifications required direct user intervention. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had been fully informed of the allegations and had been afforded the opportunity to respond throughout the process. He had been advised of his right to representation during the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. The Respondent emphasised that the integrity of customer data was fundamental to its operations and that the misconduct represented a serious breach of trust. Given the gravity of the breach and the loss of confidence in the Complainant, dismissal had been considered an appropriate and proportionate response.

The Adjudicating Officer considered the documentary evidence, witness testimony, and submissions presented by both parties. Applying the statutory test under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Adjudicator assessed whether the employer had established substantial grounds justifying dismissal and whether fair procedures had been followed. While the Complainant sincerely believed he had not engaged in wrongdoing, the key issue was whether the Respondent had formed a genuine and reasonable belief in the misconduct following a fair investigation. The Adjudicator accepted that the Respondent relied on system audit logs linking the modifications to the Complainant’s credentials and had reasonably ruled out system malfunction after consulting technical teams. It was also found that the disciplinary process complied with principles of fair procedures, including notice of allegations, opportunity to respond, representation rights, and an independent appeal. Given the seriousness of unauthorised changes to customer records and the resulting breakdown of trust, the Adjudicator concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable employer responses and therefore the complaint was not well founded.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that any disciplinary process involving alleged misconduct is supported by clear and objective evidence. This evidence should be carefully explained to the employee so that they fully understand the allegations and the basis upon which the employer believes misconduct occurred. 
   
  
• Inform employees of allegations in sufficient detail, give adequate time to prepare a response, and allow representation during disciplinary hearings. Employers should also consider relevant mitigating factors such as length of service, previous disciplinary record, and personal circumstances before determining the appropriate sanction. 
   
  
• Assess proportionality when imposing sanctions. Dismissal should generally be reserved for serious misconduct or situations where trust has irreparably broken down.

The full case can be found here.