Dismissed for covert recording: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
A Department for Work and Pensions employee who was sacked for secretly recording colleagues has won his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found serious flaws in the disciplinary process. He was awarded £25,788 after reductions for his own contribution.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 28 November 2019 for gross misconduct related to covertly recording colleagues.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to failures in the disciplinary process.
- The claimant contributed to his dismissal by recording colleagues without consent and being inconsistent in his accounts.
- The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice in three respects, leading to a 15% uplift.
- The claimant mitigated his losses by obtaining agency work from November 2020 and a permanent role with HMRC from May 2021.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by the Department for Work and Pensions for gross misconduct.
-
Notice period ends
The claimant's 5-week notice period ended, and his duty to mitigate loss began.
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was listed for the remaining claims.
-
Started job applications
The claimant began applying for permanent positions after recovering from health issues.
-
Started agency work
The claimant obtained temporary work through Brook Street Agency.
-
Started permanent role at HMRC
The claimant secured a permanent position with HMRC, ending his loss of earnings.
-
Liability hearing begins
The substantive hearing on liability commenced, lasting multiple days.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded remedy.
-
Remedy hearing
The remedy hearing was held to determine compensation.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal issued the remedy judgment with detailed calculations.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee's dismissal for gross misconduct (covertly recording colleagues) was fair, and if not, what compensation should be awarded after considering the employee's own contribution and the employer's procedural failures.
The outcome
The tribunal found the employee was unfairly dismissed due to procedural failings by the Department for Work and Pensions. However, the employee contributed to his dismissal by recording colleagues without consent and giving inconsistent accounts, so compensation was reduced.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,034.31 (reduced by 50% for contributory fault)
- Compensatory award: £22,836 (reduced by 25% for contributory fault, then uplifted by 15% for ACAS Code breach)
- Breach of contract (notice pay): £1,917.75
- Total: £25,788.06
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow the ACAS Code of Practice in disciplinary processes; failing to allow representation or provide key documents can make a dismissal unfair.
- Employees who engage in misconduct, such as covert recording, may see their compensation reduced significantly even if the dismissal is found unfair.
- Mitigating losses by finding alternative work promptly can limit the compensation period and reduce the employer's liability.
- A 15% uplift for ACAS Code breaches can add thousands of pounds to an award, so employers should take the Code seriously.
What this case shows in practice
A long-serving employee of the Department for Work and Pensions was dismissed after it emerged he had covertly recorded conversations with colleagues. While the employer viewed this as gross misconduct, the tribunal found that the way the disciplinary process was handled fell well short of the standards required by the ACAS Code of Practice. The employee was not allowed to be accompanied at a key meeting, and the investigation notes were not shared with him properly. These failures meant the dismissal was procedurally unfair, even though the employee's own behaviour had contributed to his sacking.
What the losing side could have done differently
The Department for Work and Pensions could have avoided this outcome by following basic procedural steps: allowing the employee to bring a companion, providing him with the evidence against him, and ensuring the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors. Instead, the tribunal found three separate breaches of the ACAS Code, which triggered a 15% uplift on the compensatory award. The employer also failed to give proper notice, leading to a separate award for breach of contract.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that even where an employee has clearly done something wrong, a flawed process can still lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. For employees considering a claim, it shows that compensation can be substantially reduced if they contributed to their own dismissal. The 25% reduction for contributory fault here cut the compensatory award by over £7,600. For employers, the case underscores the importance of following the ACAS Code to the letter — failure to do so can be costly, especially when an uplift is applied.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.
Dismissed for mishearing an instruction: a conduct case that failed to consider the possibility of misunderstanding
A purge and relight engineer with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a dispute over whether he was told to return to a work site. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the possibility of miscommunication and did not interview a key witness.