23-year employee dismissed for backdating contract: tribunal finds unfair dismissal
A long-serving sales director was unfairly dismissed after instructing a customer to backdate a contract under pressure from his managing director. The tribunal found the investigation and appeal process were flawed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #backdating-contract
- #gross-misconduct
- #pressure-from-manager
- #compliance-code
- #long-service
- #differential-treatment
Key facts
- The claimant instructed a customer to backdate a contract signature from 1 September to 31 August 2016 to include the order in August sales figures.
- The claimant had 23 years' service and a clean disciplinary record.
- The respondent's investigation did not properly examine the claimant's allegations of undue pressure from his managing director.
- The dismissing officer advised the appeal panel on sanction, which was a procedural failing.
- The appeal panel introduced a new finding of material deception without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond.
- A Chinese employee involved in the same incident received only a written warning.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began continuous employment with Matcon Ltd.
-
Daily management meeting
Claimant learned August sales target was £3.8 million with nil orders; managing director stressed need for a seven-digit order intake before an IDEX visit.
-
Shuangying order opportunity
A £300,000 order from Shuangying became likely, prompting efforts to book it in August.
-
Text messages from managing director
Claimant received urgent texts from Steven Ball on a bank holiday, asking for updates on August orders.
-
Instruction to backdate contract
Claimant and compliance manager David Newbould instructed Ming Zhao to ask the customer to sign but not date the contract, or date it 31 August even if signed on 1 September.
-
Contract signed by customer
Customer signed the contract on 1 September but dated it 31 August; claimant forwarded it to Newbould.
-
Suspension and disciplinary allegations
Claimant was suspended and informed of allegations: falsification of records, failure to apply sound professional judgment, bringing company into disrepute, and breakdown of trust.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant admitted giving the instruction but said he was under immense pressure and not thinking straight.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant reiterated pressure from Ball and argued the contract effective date justified his actions.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal panel upheld dismissal, adding a finding of material deception regarding a £21,000 discount.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's instruction to backdate a contract signature amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and whether the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing him.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were: the investigation did not properly consider the pressure the claimant was under from his managing director; the dismissing officer advised the appeal panel on sanction, which was a procedural failing; and the appeal panel introduced a new finding of material deception without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond. Additionally, a Chinese employee involved in the same incident received only a written warning, indicating inconsistent treatment.
Compensation was not specified in the judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must thoroughly investigate allegations of pressure or duress from managers before concluding that misconduct was deliberate.
- Appeal panels should not introduce new findings without giving the employee a chance to respond.
- Consistency in disciplinary outcomes is important; treating similar misconduct differently can undermine the fairness of a dismissal.
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to a more thorough process before dismissal for gross misconduct.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks for employers when investigating misconduct that may have been influenced by managerial pressure. The claimant, a business line leader with 23 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, instructed a customer to backdate a contract signature to include the order in August sales figures. He admitted the act but said he was under immense pressure from his managing director, who had been urgently chasing orders.
The tribunal found that the respondent's investigation did not properly examine these allegations of pressure. The dismissing officer also advised the appeal panel on sanction, which was a procedural failing. Furthermore, the appeal panel introduced a new finding of material deception without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond. These flaws meant the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided unfair dismissal by conducting a more thorough investigation into the claimant's claims of pressure. They should have ensured that the appeal process was independent and did not introduce new allegations without giving the claimant a chance to respond. Consistency in disciplinary outcomes is also crucial: a Chinese employee involved in the same incident received only a written warning, which the tribunal noted as a significant inconsistency.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that even when an employee admits misconduct, the employer must still follow a fair process. Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to a more thorough investigation, especially when they claim they were acting under pressure. The decision also underscores the importance of ensuring that appeal panels are independent and do not introduce new findings without proper procedure.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Night shelf stacker dismissed for failing to scan items: Tesco's decision upheld
A Tesco employee with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to scan and pay for items on multiple occasions while using the Scan as You Shop service. The tribunal found Tesco's investigation and decision were reasonable.