Administrator dismissed for financial errors: employer's decision upheld
An experienced administrator was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after repeated errors in financial processing and payroll, despite having 9 years' service. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #financial-processing-errors
- #cf-audit-backlog
- #eroster-mistakes
- #suspension
- #gross-misconduct
- #unauthorised-deductions
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an administrator from 2015 and was experienced in her role.
- From January 2021, the respondent raised concerns about a backlog in the Client Fund Account and errors in payroll processing.
- The claimant was suspended on 15 July 2021 and dismissed for gross misconduct on 1 September 2021.
- The respondent provided training and support to the claimant but she continued to make errors.
- The claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions related to 10 hours per week she worked as a support worker, which the tribunal found was not a separate contract.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a support worker.
-
Became administrator
Claimant became an administrator, working 37.5 hours per week.
-
CFA backlog began
Concerns arose about a backlog in the Client Fund Account (CFA) from July 2020.
-
Audit concerns raised
Administration Support Manager JS emailed about the CFA backlog and audit actions.
-
Support offered
SP emailed the claimant offering support and a strategy to clear the CFA backlog.
-
Site visit
JS visited the site to review CFA and set actions for the claimant.
-
Concerns escalated
CSS raised concerns about payroll errors and potential fraud.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Management report
Mr Barham completed a management report detailing allegations against the claimant.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing held remotely; claimant dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment terminated by letter dated 31 August 2021, effective 1 September 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Ms Priestley; dismissal upheld on 28 September 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, whether the claimant was entitled to notice pay, and whether the employer made unauthorised deductions from wages during suspension.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the employer had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance in financial processing and payroll, which had been raised over several months with support offered. The investigation was reasonable, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses.
- Claim for unfair dismissal: failed
- Claim for notice pay: failed
- Claim for unauthorised deductions: failed
- No compensation awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should document performance concerns clearly and offer support before resorting to dismissal for gross misconduct.
- A reasonable investigation is key: the employer here reviewed documents, interviewed the employee, and considered her responses.
- Employees in financial roles should be aware that repeated errors, even if unintentional, can lead to dismissal for gross negligence.
- Working additional hours on a casual basis does not automatically create a separate contract entitling you to pay during suspension.
When performance issues become misconduct
This case shows how persistent errors in a financial role can escalate into a gross misconduct dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. The administrator had worked for Parkcare Homes for nearly nine years, but from mid-2020 concerns arose about a backlog in the Client Fund Account and payroll mistakes. Despite training and support, the errors continued, leading to suspension and dismissal.
The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on a detailed management report and the employee's own admissions. The investigation was thorough, and the disciplinary hearing gave the employee a chance to respond. The appeal also upheld the decision.
What the employer did right
The employer could have been criticised for moving too quickly, but the timeline shows they gave the employee several months to improve. They offered support, set clear actions, and only escalated when problems persisted. The tribunal found this was a reasonable process, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that gross misconduct can include gross negligence, not just intentional wrongdoing. Employees in financial roles should take care to follow procedures, and employers should document concerns and offer support. The claim for unauthorised deductions also failed because the additional hours worked as a support worker were casual, not part of a separate contract, so there was no entitlement to pay during suspension.
Similar cases
Healthcare consultant dismissed for gross misconduct after customer complaints: race discrimination claims rejected
A healthcare consultant with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following four customer complaints about his attitude. The tribunal also rejected his claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
Whistleblowing sign erector wins unfair dismissal claim against First Signs Ltd
A sign erector with only 7 months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after raising road safety concerns about unroadworthy vehicles. The tribunal awarded £9,858.56.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to less than two years' service
A former employee of Gatwick Construction Limited had their unfair dismissal claim thrown out because they had not worked there for two years. Their other claims for wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deductions also failed.
Long-serving union branch secretary dismissed for bullying: conduct dismissal upheld
A UNISON branch secretary with 49 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after two complaints of bullying and threatening behaviour. The tribunal rejected his claim that he was targeted for trade union activities.