Dismissed for 'ghost overtime' after 22 years: Royal Mail's conduct decision upheld
An employee with 22 years' service was fairly dismissed for fraudulently claiming 706 hours of unauthorised overtime, the tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #conduct-dismissal
- #fraudulent-overtime
- #gross-misconduct
- #long-service
- #retrospective-amendment
- #ghost-overtime
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 10 May 1999 to 10 June 2021 as an Operational Postal Grade and later as Delivery Office Manager Support.
- The claimant admitted to paying himself overtime without specific pre-authorisation, claiming ghost overtime, and retrospectively amending P552 sheets.
- The respondent's investigation included security interviews, a fact-finding meeting, a formal conduct interview, and an appeal hearing.
- The decision-maker, Mr Taylor, and appeal officer, Mr Hulme, both concluded the claimant had fraudulently claimed 706 hours of unauthorised overtime.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief, reasonable grounds, and a fair procedure, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Royal Mail Group Limited.
-
Absorbed additional duties
Claimant took over the remainder of Ms Evans' DOM Support role, increasing his workload.
-
Security team alerted
Mr Carver and Mr Todd reported concerns about the claimant's overtime to the security team.
-
Security interview
Claimant was interviewed by security; he admitted to adding sheets but not altering them initially.
-
Sent home and sick leave
Claimant was sent home and did not return to work before dismissal.
-
Fact-finding meeting
Claimant attended a fact-finding meeting with Mr Kidman, providing a detailed statement.
-
Formal conduct interview
Claimant attended a conduct interview with Mr Taylor, who later dismissed him.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for fraudulent overtime payments and dishonesty.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed his dismissal.
-
Appeal decision
Mr Hulme upheld the dismissal after a re-hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Royal Mail acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for conduct relating to fraudulent overtime claims and dishonesty, considering the investigation, grounds for belief, and procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that Royal Mail had carried out a thorough investigation including security interviews, fact-finding, a formal conduct interview, and an appeal. The decision-maker and appeal officer both concluded the employee had fraudulently claimed 706 hours of unauthorised overtime. The tribunal held that the employer had a genuine belief, reasonable grounds for that belief, and followed a fair procedure, making dismissal a reasonable response.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not protect against dismissal for serious misconduct like fraud.
- Admitting to the conduct early does not necessarily make dismissal unfair if the employer follows a fair process.
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough and include multiple stages to demonstrate fairness.
- Retrospectively amending records without authorisation is likely to be treated as gross misconduct.
A 22-year career undone by ghost overtime
This case shows how even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for serious misconduct. The employee, who had worked for Royal Mail for 22 years, was summarily dismissed after admitting to paying himself overtime without specific pre-authorisation, claiming ghost overtime, and retrospectively amending P552 sheets. The total unauthorised overtime amounted to 706 hours.
What Royal Mail did right
Royal Mail's investigation was thorough. It included a security interview, a fact-finding meeting, a formal conduct interview, and an appeal hearing with a re-hearing. The decision-maker and appeal officer both independently concluded that the employee had acted dishonestly. The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief, reasonable grounds for that belief, and followed a fair procedure. This meant the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
What the employee could have done differently
The employee represented himself and argued that his actions were not dishonest because he was overworked and had absorbed additional duties. However, the tribunal found that he had admitted to the conduct and that the employer's process was fair. Employees in similar situations should consider whether their actions could be seen as dishonest by a reasonable employer, and whether they have a clear authorisation process for overtime.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for conduct even when the employee has a long service record, provided they follow a fair procedure. It also highlights the importance of clear overtime authorisation policies and the risks of retrospectively amending records without permission.
Similar cases
24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
Night shelf stacker dismissed for failing to scan items: Tesco's decision upheld
A Tesco employee with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to scan and pay for items on multiple occasions while using the Scan as You Shop service. The tribunal found Tesco's investigation and decision were reasonable.