Assistant manager dismissed for manipulating time records: a fair decision
An assistant manager with eight years' service was fairly dismissed for amending his Kronos time records after CCTV showed discrepancies. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #kronos-manipulation
- #time-recording
- #gross-misconduct
- #falsification
- #assistant-manager
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Assistant Manager from February 2013 until dismissal on 9 July 2021.
- The claimant admitted amending his Kronos time records on eight dates between 27 May and 18 June 2021.
- CCTV showed the claimant arriving later and leaving earlier than his recorded times.
- The claimant said he amended records to take back time for missed breaks or extra hours worked.
- The respondent's disciplinary policy listed Kronos manipulation as gross misconduct.
- The appeal hearing dropped the allegation of financial gain but upheld dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Senior Sales Assistant.
-
Seconded as Assistant Manager
Claimant seconded to Birkenhead branch as Assistant Manager.
-
Kronos e-learning completed
Claimant completed four e-learning modules on Kronos, scoring 100% on each.
-
First Kronos amendment
Claimant began amending his Kronos time records; eight amendments occurred up to 18 June 2021.
-
Investigation meeting and suspension
Claimant was questioned about discrepancies and suspended on full pay.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (Kronos manipulation).
-
Dismissal letter sent
Claimant received written confirmation of dismissal.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
First appeal hearing (adjourned)
Hearing adjourned because claimant lacked disciplinary notes.
-
Appeal hearing and outcome
Appeal heard; decision to dismiss upheld.
-
Appeal outcome letter
Claimant notified that appeal was unsuccessful.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant submitted unfair dismissal claim to Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct after he admitted amending his Kronos time records, and whether the investigation and disciplinary process were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the dismissal was fair.
The key reasons were:
- The employer had a genuine belief that the claimant had manipulated his time records, which was admitted.
- The investigation was reasonable, including reviewing CCTV and Kronos data.
- Dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct, given the policy explicitly listed Kronos manipulation as gross misconduct.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Admitting a policy breach does not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the employer must still conduct a reasonable investigation and consider the employee's explanations.
- Long service and a clean disciplinary record do not guarantee protection from dismissal for gross misconduct if the misconduct is serious and clearly defined in policy.
- Employers should ensure their policies clearly define gross misconduct and apply them consistently, as tribunals will defer to a reasonable employer's decision within the range of reasonable responses.
- Employees should be aware that manipulating time recording systems is a serious breach of trust and can lead to summary dismissal, even for first-time offences.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates how a well-established employer policy, combined with a thorough investigation, can justify dismissal for gross misconduct even when the employee has a long service record. The claimant, an assistant manager with eight years of service and no prior disciplinary issues, admitted amending his Kronos time records on eight occasions. CCTV footage confirmed he arrived later and left earlier than recorded. Despite his explanation that he was adjusting for missed breaks or extra hours, the employer's policy explicitly listed Kronos manipulation as gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that Poundland acted reasonably: it investigated promptly, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered the claimant's explanations. The appeal process also addressed the claimant's concerns, though it upheld the dismissal. The key factor was that the employer's belief in the misconduct was genuine and based on reasonable grounds.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that his amendments were minor and that he had not gained financially. However, the tribunal noted that the policy did not require financial gain for the conduct to be gross misconduct. The claimant could have sought clarification from his manager before making the amendments, or raised concerns about missed breaks through proper channels. Instead, his unilateral actions breached the trust central to his role as an assistant manager.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of a reasonable employer. Where a policy clearly defines certain conduct as gross misconduct, and the employer follows a fair process, dismissal is likely to be upheld. Employees should be cautious about self-help measures that contravene company policy, even if they believe they are correcting an error. The decision also highlights that long service does not create immunity from dismissal for serious misconduct.
Similar cases
24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.
Assistant store manager dismissed for manipulating time-recording system: dismissal fair
An assistant store manager who allowed a colleague to work without clocking in and later falsified time records was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claim that lack of training excused the manipulation of the Kronos system.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.