Dismissed after four weeks for lying on job application: tribunal strikes out claims
A warehouse partner who was sacked after just four weeks for using a false name and lying about previous employment had his unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims struck out by the Reading Employment Tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 13 March 2022 to 14 April 2022, just over four weeks.
- The claimant used a different name and lied about prior employment with the respondent on his application.
- The claimant admitted the dishonesty during an investigation meeting.
- The disciplinary hearing continued in the claimant's absence after he left.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The claimant had previously been dismissed in 2017 and had made a protected disclosure between 2015-2017.
Timeline
-
Claimant first employed by respondent
The claimant began employment with John Lewis plc, working until 2017.
-
Protected disclosure made
Between 2015 and 2017, the claimant made a disclosure about management allegedly rejecting all employee complaints.
-
First dismissal
The claimant was dismissed in 2017 for serious misconduct including dishonesty, which he claims was due to whistleblowing.
-
Previous claim struck out
Employment Judge Morton struck out the claimant's 2017 claim as scandalous/unreasonable.
-
Job application under different name
The claimant applied for a Warehouse Assistant role using the name Ananeckwu Ezeh and a CV omitting prior employment with the respondent.
-
Interview
At interview, the claimant denied ever having worked for the respondent before.
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a Warehouse Partner at Waitrose & Partners Distribution Centre in Bracknell.
-
Recognised by security team leader
Richard Serne asked if they had worked together; the claimant denied it, suggesting a mistaken identity.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant admitted using a different name and lying about prior employment; he was suspended.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
The claimant left the hearing after 20 minutes; the decision maker continued and summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard.
-
Appeal rejected
The respondent informed the claimant that his appeal had been rejected.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst heard the respondent's strike out application and struck out all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim from an employee with only four weeks' service, and whether the whistleblowing claims had any reasonable prospect of success given the admitted dishonesty.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the respondent's application to strike out all claims.
- The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The whistleblowing claims (automatic unfair dismissal and detriment) were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had admitted dishonesty in his job application, which was the clear reason for his dismissal, and the alleged protected disclosure from years earlier was not connected.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service generally cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason such as whistleblowing.
- Admitted dishonesty, such as lying on a job application, is a strong ground for dismissal and can undermine any linked whistleblowing claim.
- Whistleblowing claims require a clear link between the protected disclosure and the dismissal or detriment; a disclosure made years earlier with no connection to the decision will not succeed.
- If you have previously been dismissed by an employer, reapplying under a false name and denying prior employment is likely to be treated as gross misconduct.
This case shows how quickly an employment relationship can unravel when dishonesty comes to light. The claimant had been employed as a warehouse partner for just over four weeks when his manager recognised him from a previous stint at the same company. During an investigation, he admitted he had used a different name on his application and lied about having worked there before. The disciplinary hearing ended with his summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
Why the claims failed
The tribunal had two clear legal hurdles to cross. First, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because the claimant had not been employed for the two years required by law. Second, the whistleblowing claims — that his dismissal was because of a protected disclosure he had made years earlier — were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judge noted that the admitted dishonesty was the overwhelming reason for the dismissal, and there was no evidence linking the old disclosure to the decision to sack him.
What the respondent did right
John Lewis plc followed a proper process: it investigated promptly, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered an appeal. The claimant's decision to leave the hearing early did not prevent the process from continuing. The employer's clear focus on the admitted dishonesty made it difficult for the claimant to argue that the real reason was something else.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a whistleblowing claim, this case is a reminder that the disclosure must be a material factor in the dismissal or detriment. A disclosure made years earlier, with no apparent connection to the decision, is unlikely to succeed — especially when the employer can point to clear misconduct. It also highlights the importance of the two-year service requirement for ordinary unfair dismissal, which remains a significant barrier for short-serving employees.
Similar cases
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.