By Jo Seery, Professional Support Lawyer
Introduction
Ms Elizabeth Chand, a Senior Customer Advisor with 16 years’ service, was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct following four incidents which EE believed involved fraud. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found no reasonable basis for a belief in fraud in any of the allegations and that a finding of gross misconduct was outside the range of reasonable response. However, it held that the dismissal was fair based on one serious policy breach, which amounted to breach of trust and confidence. Ms Chand appealed on the ground that the tribunal had not found that the single breach was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. EE cross‑appealed, arguing the Tribunal was wrong to reject its belief that the fraud was not reasonably held.
Key Issues
Composite reason for dismissal
The EAT held that the ET failed to identify the principal reason for dismissal. The evidence showed the manager viewed all four allegations as fraudulent and treated them collectively, meaning fraud formed the employer’s composite reason for dismissal. The Tribunal found that the dismissing officer had not viewed each of the allegations separately and had expressed the view that if there had been fewer allegations, then the Claimant’s length of service my have made a difference to the outcome. The tribunal had not therefore made any finding that the employer's sole or principal reason for dismissal was the allegation of a serious breach of policy. While that could have been a reason for dismissal, it was not the employer's actual reason for dismissal. Having found that the employer’s belief that all four allegations amounted to fraud was not reasonably held, it could not therefore uphold the dismissal.
Reasonableness of the employer’s belief
The EAT rejected EE’s cross‑appeal, confirming the ET had properly analysed the evidence and was entitled to conclude there were no reasonable grounds for believing any incident involved fraud.
Appeal process
The internal appeal manager simply endorsed the original decision without establishing an independent principal reason, repeating the flawed reliance on fraud.
Outcome
The EAT upheld Ms Chand’s appeal, substituting a finding of unfair dismissal. The case was remitted to the ET for a remedy hearing.
Why This Matters
The decision reinforces that:
- Where an employer relies on a composite reason, all essential components must be reasonably held;
- Tribunals must examine what the decision‑maker actually decided, not what they could have decided;
- A dismissal cannot be fair where there was no finding that one of the allegations by itself was the principal reason for the dismissal.
