Falsified clocking-in record: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A production operator who asked a colleague to clock her in early was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim, finding the employer's investigation and decision were reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #falsification-of-records
- #clocking-in
- #gross-misconduct
- #key-worker
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for allegedly falsifying a clocking-in record.
- A colleague, Carl Balls, clocked the claimant in at 07:17 on 25 November 2021, but she did not arrive until at least 07:47.
- The claimant gave Carl Balls a note suggesting they say it was a mistake.
- The respondent conducted fact-finding meetings, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal.
- The claimant did not raise her alternative version of events until the tribunal hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment as a production operator.
-
Alleged clocking-in incident
Carl Balls clocked the claimant in at 07:17; she arrived after 07:47. Fact-finding meetings were held.
-
Note given to colleague
The claimant gave Carl Balls a note suggesting they say the clock-in was a mistake.
-
Further investigation and suspension
The claimant declined a further fact-finding meeting and was suspended on full pay.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
A disciplinary hearing was held; the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Effective date of termination
The dismissal took effect.
-
Appeal requested
The claimant requested an appeal.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing ended prematurely due to the claimant's perception of its purpose.
-
Appeal outcome
The respondent informed the claimant that her appeal was unsuccessful.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for conduct (falsifying a clocking-in record) was fair, applying the test of whether the employer genuinely believed the claimant was guilty, on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer carried out a reasonable investigation, including fact-finding meetings and a disciplinary hearing, and genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct by asking a colleague to clock her in early and then suggesting they say it was a mistake. The claimant did not raise her alternative version of events until the tribunal hearing, which undermined her credibility.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should conduct a reasonable investigation before dismissing for misconduct, including fact-finding meetings and a disciplinary hearing.
- Employees should raise any alternative explanations during the internal process, not wait until a tribunal hearing.
- Falsification of records, especially timekeeping records, is a serious matter and can justify summary dismissal.
- Being a long-serving or valued employee does not protect against dismissal for gross misconduct if the employer acts reasonably.
A case about trust and honesty at work
This case shows how seriously tribunals take the falsification of workplace records, even when the employee has a good employment history. The claimant, a production operator who had worked for 4BG Group for over three years, was dismissed after a colleague clocked her in at 07:17 when she did not arrive until at least 07:47. The employer's investigation revealed that the claimant had asked the colleague to clock her in and later gave him a note suggesting they say it was a mistake.
What the employer did right
The employer followed a fair process: it held fact-finding meetings on the same day, gave the claimant a chance to respond, and then conducted a disciplinary hearing before deciding to dismiss. The claimant was also given an appeal hearing, though it ended early due to a misunderstanding. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not raise her alternative version of events until the tribunal hearing, which damaged her credibility. The employer's genuine belief in the misconduct, based on the evidence gathered, was enough to make the dismissal fair.
What this means for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for gross misconduct if they carry out a reasonable investigation and genuinely believe the employee committed the act. For employees, it highlights the importance of being honest during internal processes and raising any defences early. The fact that the claimant was a key worker with a good record did not make the dismissal unfair, because the employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Project manager dismissed for planting listening device: tribunal upholds dismissal
A project manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after a listening device was found in his boss's office, with wires leading to his desk. The Liverpool tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Expense claim misrepresentation led to fair dismissal for financial services analyst
A senior analyst with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after submitting an expense claim that included his partner's meals and then denying it during investigation. The tribunal upheld Citibank's decision.
Studio manager dismissed for issuing free sunbed sessions: employer's investigation held to be reasonable
A tribunal has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a studio manager with nine years' service who was sacked for gross misconduct after repeatedly giving free sunbed sessions without authorisation. The employer's investigation and decision were found to be within the range of reasonable responses.