Sales assistant dismissed for gross misconduct after CCTV shows suspicious behaviour: dismissal fair despite appeal delay
A sales assistant with five years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed her taking an item from a locked cabinet where Apple AirPods were later found missing. The tribunal upheld the decision despite a six-week delay in the appeal process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #cctv-evidence
- #stock-loss
- #suspicious-behaviour
- #appeal-delay
- #hr-guidance
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Sales Assistant from 11 December 2015 until dismissal on 23 September 2021.
- A stocktake on 13 and 15 February 2021 revealed one set of Apple AirPods missing.
- CCTV showed the claimant taking an item from the cabinet where AirPods were stored, not corresponding to a customer order.
- The claimant gave varying accounts during the disciplinary process, including that she was helping a colleague or picking something off the floor.
- The appeal was delayed by six to seven weeks due to HR processing, which the respondent accepted as a procedural defect.
- The tribunal found the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds, and a fair procedure overall.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Sales Assistant at Currys Group Ltd.
-
First stocktake
Stocktake of Apple AirPods conducted; no discrepancy noted.
-
Second stocktake and CCTV review
Stocktake revealed one set of AirPods missing. CCTV reviewed showing claimant taking an item from the cabinet.
-
Investigatory meeting
Claimant was interviewed by Mr Hassan; she could not account for her actions on CCTV.
-
First disciplinary meeting
Meeting with Mr Hird; claimant raised issue about number of missing items.
-
Second disciplinary meeting
Claimant asked for additional witnesses; CCTV was shown and discussed.
-
Claimant went sick
Claimant began a period of sickness, delaying the final disciplinary meeting.
-
Final disciplinary meeting and dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal conducted by Mr McMillan; claimant's points were addressed.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claim form submitted for unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation into the missing stock was reasonable, whether the employer genuinely believed the employee was guilty of misconduct, and whether the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, ruling that Currys Group Ltd acted fairly overall.
- The employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on CCTV evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts.
- The investigation was reasonable, including multiple meetings and a review of the footage.
- Although the appeal was delayed by six to seven weeks due to HR processing, this procedural defect did not make the dismissal unfair, as the appeal was ultimately heard and the claimant's points were addressed.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- CCTV evidence can be powerful in misconduct cases, but employers must still conduct a reasonable investigation and give the employee a chance to explain.
- A delay in the appeal process does not automatically make a dismissal unfair, especially if the appeal is eventually heard and the employee's concerns are addressed.
- Employees should provide consistent and credible accounts during disciplinary proceedings; changing stories can undermine their case.
- Employers should ensure that disciplinary and appeal processes are handled promptly, but minor procedural delays may not be fatal if the overall process is fair.
When CCTV tells a different story
A sales assistant with five years' service at Currys Group Ltd was dismissed after CCTV footage appeared to show her taking an item from a locked cabinet where Apple AirPods were stored. A stocktake revealed one set of AirPods was missing, and the claimant's actions on the footage did not correspond to any customer order. During the investigation, she gave varying accounts of what she was doing—first saying she was helping a colleague, then that she was picking something off the floor. The employer concluded she had committed gross misconduct and dismissed her summarily.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal applied the well-known Burchell test: did the employer have a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation? It found that Currys had a genuine belief, supported by the CCTV and the claimant's inconsistent explanations. The investigation included multiple meetings, a review of the footage, and consideration of the claimant's requests for witnesses. Although the appeal was delayed by six to seven weeks due to HR processing—a procedural flaw the employer accepted—the tribunal noted that the appeal was ultimately heard and the claimant's points were addressed. The delay did not render the dismissal unfair.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will scrutinise the overall fairness of a dismissal, not just isolated procedural errors. Even where there is a delay in the appeal, if the employer can show a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds, the dismissal may still be fair. For employees, it highlights the importance of giving clear and consistent accounts during disciplinary proceedings. For employers, it reinforces that while a thorough investigation is essential, minor delays in the appeal process may not be fatal if the process as a whole is fair.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Catering manager with 16 years' service dismissed for alleged theft and bullying: employer's decision upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a catering manager who was found guilty of gross misconduct for stealing tea bags and bullying a colleague, ruling that Serco Ltd's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.