Administrator dismissed over pre-employment check failures: dismissal upheld despite inadequate training
An administrator with 2.5 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after an audit revealed failures in pre-employment checks and confidential documents were found at her desk. The tribunal upheld the dismissal as fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #pre-employment-checks
- #right-to-work
- #confidentiality-breach
- #clear-desk-policy
- #inadequate-training
- #computer-file-deletion
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Administrator/Receptionist from 17 October 2018 until summary dismissal on 13 May 2021.
- An audit in April 2021 revealed failures in pre-employment checks, including a new starter without right to work.
- Confidential documents were found in and around the reception desk after the claimant was suspended.
- The claimant sent an email incorrectly confirming all checks were completed for a new starter who lacked right to work.
- The claimant received inadequate training and support, with only two supervisions in 2.5 years.
- The respondent's investigation into computer file deletion was based on assumption without proper inquiry.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Administrator/Receptionist at Folkestone Care Centre.
-
Audit and suspension
Kerry Such conducted an audit of staff files, found failures, and suspended the claimant.
-
Confidential documents found
Another employee reported documents stored in reception desk drawers and other areas.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing with 24 allegations of misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing conducted by Sarah Redmond and Lola Titus, lasting 1 hour 40 minutes.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct; all allegations found proven.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed, arguing dismissal too harsh and lack of training.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Daniela Vitan, lasting 35 minutes; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for misconduct was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996, considering whether the employer genuinely believed the claimant was guilty, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a proper investigation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the employer acted reasonably in dismissing her for gross misconduct.
Key reasons:
- The employer genuinely believed the claimant had failed to carry out proper pre-employment checks and had left confidential documents in insecure locations.
- The employer had reasonable grounds for that belief based on the audit findings and witness reports.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable overall, despite some procedural shortcomings.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure employees receive adequate training and supervision, but a lack of training does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the misconduct is serious.
- Employees should take care to follow clear desk policies and secure confidential documents, as breaches can be treated as gross misconduct.
- A disciplinary process that includes a hearing and an appeal can be considered reasonable even if it is relatively brief, provided the employee has a chance to respond.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how an employer can fairly dismiss an employee for misconduct even when the employee has had limited training and support. The administrator had been in post for 2.5 years but received only two supervisions in that time. Despite this, the tribunal found that the employer's belief in her misconduct was genuine and reasonable.
The audit revealed that the claimant had failed to carry out proper pre-employment checks on a new starter, who did not have the right to work in the UK. She also sent an email incorrectly confirming all checks were complete. Additionally, confidential documents were found in and around the reception desk after she was suspended. The employer treated these as serious breaches of procedure and confidentiality.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that she had not received adequate training and that the investigation into computer file deletion was based on assumption. However, the tribunal noted that the employer's investigation was reasonable overall, and the disciplinary hearing gave her an opportunity to respond. The employer could have provided more training and clearer guidance, but the tribunal did not consider the lack of training sufficient to make the dismissal unfair.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer. The key question is whether the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses. Even where there are procedural weaknesses, such as a short disciplinary hearing or an appeal lasting only 35 minutes, the dismissal may still be fair if the employer genuinely believed in the misconduct and carried out a reasonable investigation. Employees in administrative roles should be aware that failures in basic checks and document security can lead to dismissal, even if they feel unsupported.
Similar cases
Trainee solicitor dismissed for transferring 106 confidential emails to private account
A trainee solicitor who sent 106 confidential client emails to her personal address was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled. Her claims of whistleblowing and pregnancy discrimination were rejected.
Home care assistant's race discrimination claim struck out after non-payment of deposit
A tribunal struck out a home care assistant's race discrimination claim after she failed to pay a £1,200 deposit ordered because her allegations had little prospect of success. The case highlights the risks of bringing claims based on immigration status rather than race.
Part-time lecturer's unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being too late
A part-time lecturer who waited over a year to bring an unfair dismissal claim after his employment ended due to right-to-work issues has had his case dismissed as out of time.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out as eight months late despite depression and appeal delay
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because it was presented eight and a half months after the three-month time limit expired. The tribunal found that neither his depression nor the ongoing internal appeal made it 'not reasonably practicable' to file on time.