Sales advisor dismissed for making up time sheets: a fair conduct dismissal
A part-time sales advisor who admitted submitting false time sheets was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also awarded him £250 in unpaid commission and £1,412 for the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #false-timesheets
- #gross-misconduct
- #commission-dispute
- #company-car-tax
- #failure-to-provide-written-particulars
- #whistleblowing-allegation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a part-time sales advisor from 23 March 2018.
- He submitted false time sheets for November 2020, which he admitted making up.
- The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing on 21 December 2020.
- The claimant had requested commission payment on 26 November 2020 and received partial payment on 3 December 2020.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 24 December 2020 alleging fraud by the respondent in obtaining EU grants.
- The respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars despite being notified in April 2020.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a part-time sales advisor for LC Longtown Ltd.
-
Claimant notified respondent of missing written particulars
During furlough, claimant told the general manager he did not have a written contract.
-
Claimant submitted commission request
Claimant emailed Mr Henderson requesting £9,529.29 in commission for sales he believed he had earned.
-
Respondent requested time sheets from all sales staff
Mr Henderson emailed all sales advisors asking them to submit time sheets for November.
-
Claimant received partial commission payment
Claimant was paid £2,458.99 in commission; Mr Henderson conceded a further £250 was owed.
-
Claimant submitted time sheets
Claimant submitted time sheets for November, later admitted they were made up.
-
Appraisal meeting and informal questioning
During annual appraisal, Mr Henderson asked claimant about discrepancies between time sheets and tracker data.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended disciplinary hearing via Zoom; he admitted making up time sheets but denied gross misconduct.
-
Claimant dismissed
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; he was informed by letter.
-
Claimant submitted grievance
Claimant raised a grievance alleging fraud by the respondent in obtaining EU grants, among other complaints.
-
Appeal and grievance meeting
Mr Armstrong heard claimant's appeal and grievance jointly; claimant failed to provide evidence of fraud allegations.
-
Appeal and grievance dismissed
Mr Armstrong upheld the dismissal and rejected the grievance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct, automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure or asserting a statutory right to be paid commission, and whether he was owed unpaid commission and damages for a company car tax liability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, ruling that the employer acted reasonably in treating the false time sheets as gross misconduct. The claimant had admitted making up the time sheets, and the disciplinary process was fair.
The tribunal also dismissed the claims for automatic unfair dismissal based on whistleblowing or asserting a statutory right. The claimant's grievance about EU grant fraud was raised after dismissal, so it could not have been the reason for dismissal.
Compensation awarded:
- £250 for unpaid commission (unlawful deduction of wages)
- £1,412.31 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars (4 weeks' pay)
- Total: £1,662.31
Lessons & takeaways
- Admitting to misconduct during a disciplinary hearing does not automatically make a dismissal unfair — the employer must still show a genuine belief based on a reasonable investigation.
- Raising a whistleblowing grievance after dismissal will not protect you from a conduct dismissal that was already decided.
- Employers who fail to provide written employment particulars risk a penalty of up to 4 weeks' pay, even if the employee is fairly dismissed.
- Disputes over commission or other payments should be pursued separately from the disciplinary process to avoid confusion about the reason for dismissal.
A straightforward case of misconduct
This case shows that when an employee admits to making up time sheets, an employer can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct — even if the employee has a long service record and no previous disciplinary issues. The claimant, a part-time sales advisor for LC Longtown Limited, submitted false time sheets for November 2020 and later admitted they were made up. The employer carried out a disciplinary hearing via Zoom, gave the claimant a chance to explain, and decided that the conduct justified summary dismissal.
The tribunal found that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, that the belief was based on a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant argued that the issue should have been dealt with informally first, but the tribunal noted that the false time sheets were a serious matter and the employer was entitled to treat them as gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
The employer followed a fair process: it asked all sales staff to submit time sheets, noticed discrepancies between the claimant's time sheets and tracker data, raised the issue at an appraisal meeting, then held a formal disciplinary hearing. The claimant was given notice of the hearing and the opportunity to respond. He admitted the misconduct, and the employer decided that dismissal was appropriate.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant might have avoided dismissal by being honest from the start, but once he admitted the false time sheets, the outcome was likely. He also raised a grievance about EU grant fraud after his dismissal, but that could not protect him because it came too late. The tribunal made clear that a post-dismissal disclosure cannot be the reason for dismissal.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that admitting misconduct does not guarantee an unfair dismissal finding. Employers who follow a fair procedure and have a genuine belief in the misconduct will usually succeed. It also highlights that whistleblowing claims must be based on disclosures made before the dismissal decision, not after. Finally, the award for failure to provide written particulars shows that employers cannot ignore their obligations under the Employment Rights Act 1996, even if the dismissal itself is fair.
Similar cases
Dismissed by email while on maternity leave: a conduct process that never happened
An account manager with 19 years' unblemished service was summarily dismissed by email while on maternity leave, with no investigation or disciplinary hearing. The tribunal awarded £37,310.
Dismissed for swearing at a director: a flawed process that was predetermined from the start
A drainage surveying manager was unfairly dismissed after a verbal altercation with a director. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and appeal were predetermined, awarding £3,345 in compensation.
Unclear COVID-19 instructions and delay in investigation led to unfair dismissal
A First Line Leader with 5 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Unilever after unclear instructions on social distancing measures and a 6-week investigation delay. The tribunal reduced compensation by 30% for his own contribution.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.