Store manager dismissed for timecard falsification after 21 years: dismissal fair
A tribunal has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim by a store manager with 21 years' service who was sacked for overbooking holidays and falsifying time records.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #final-written-warning
- #cctv-evidence
- #holiday-overbooking
- #absence-at-disciplinary
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 29 April 2000 until 15 October 2021 as a store manager.
- She received a final written warning on 19 October 2020 for breach of onboarding process.
- In April-June 2021, she overbooked holidays and inaccurately recorded timecards, leading to overpayment.
- The disciplinary hearing proceeded in her absence on 12 October 2021 after she failed to provide medical evidence.
- The appeal manager conducted further investigations and upheld the dismissal on 3 January 2022.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Holland and Barratt Retail Ltd.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation into allegations of misconduct.
-
Final written warning issued
Claimant received a final written warning for breach of new employee onboarding process.
-
Holiday overbooking raised
Lorna Murray raised with Mr Ali that claimant was overbooking holidays.
-
Mr Ali visited store
Mr Ali visited Palmers Green store, raised holiday and timecard issues with claimant.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Ali and Eileen Cronin visited store for investigation; a theft occurred that day.
-
Second investigation meeting
Further investigation meeting; claimant questioned about time recording and holiday overbooking.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing on 5 October 2021 for two allegations.
-
Disciplinary hearing in absence
Claimant did not attend; hearing proceeded in her absence; decision to dismiss made.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant dismissed with payment in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing before Darsh Chand; claimant attended with union rep.
-
Appeal decision
Appeal dismissed; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing a long-serving store manager for misconduct relating to holiday overbooking and inaccurate time recording, and whether the disciplinary process was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on a reasonable investigation.
- The disciplinary process was fair, including proceeding in the claimant's absence when she failed to provide medical evidence.
- The appeal process was thorough, with further investigations conducted.
- Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a manager with a final written warning.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the misconduct is serious and the process is fair.
- Failing to attend a disciplinary hearing without proper medical evidence can allow the employer to proceed in your absence.
- A final written warning for a similar issue can make dismissal more likely for further misconduct.
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough and that the decision-maker has a genuine belief in the misconduct.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for misconduct if the employer follows a proper process. The store manager, who had worked for Holland and Barratt for 21 years, was dismissed after overbooking holidays and falsifying time records, leading to overpayment. She already had a final written warning for a previous breach.
The tribunal found that the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation, including multiple meetings and CCTV evidence. The disciplinary hearing was held in her absence after she failed to provide medical evidence for her non-attendance. The appeal process was also thorough, with the appeal manager conducting further investigations before upholding the dismissal.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have attended the disciplinary hearing or provided medical evidence to explain her absence. She also could have engaged more fully with the investigation process. Her failure to do so meant the employer was entitled to proceed without her input.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for misconduct even where the employee has long service, provided the investigation is reasonable and the decision falls within the range of reasonable responses. It also highlights that employees should not assume their length of service will protect them if they fail to engage with the disciplinary process.
Similar cases
Catering manager with 16 years' service dismissed for alleged theft and bullying: employer's decision upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a catering manager who was found guilty of gross misconduct for stealing tea bags and bullying a colleague, ruling that Serco Ltd's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
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.
Installation engineer dismissed for fuelling personal car with company credit card
An installation engineer who used his employer's credit card to fuel his personal car on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal has ruled.