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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an area manager from 27 March 2019 until dismissal on 1 August 2022.
- The claimant edited a timesheet to pay an employee for hours not worked and failed to report the edit.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about cash payments, visa breaches, and pension issues.
- The respondent's investigation was unreasonable; the claimant was not interviewed and not given evidence beforehand.
- The disciplinary hearing was conducted without proper notice of potential dismissal.
- The appeal was conducted in writing by a manager who attended the disciplinary hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with associated company PJ Eastleigh Limited.
-
Transferred to respondent
Claimant's employment transferred to PJ Winchester Limited (later Hamble Foods Limited).
-
Retention bonus agreed
Respondent agreed to pay a £2000 retention bonus on 10 January 2022.
-
First protected disclosures
Claimant raised concerns about cash payments and pension deductions.
-
Totton store incident
Store opened late; claimant edited timesheets to pay employee for unworked hours.
-
Investigation started
Respondent tasked Farah Amir to investigate the incident.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended for providing false information and editing timesheets.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary meeting.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal rejected by Mr Hussain, who had attended the disciplinary hearing.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £8026.36 compensation for unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct (editing a timesheet) was fair under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether it was automatically unfair because the claimant had made protected disclosures. It also considered claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of ordinary unfair dismissal but dismissed the claim of automatically unfair dismissal. The dismissal was found to be procedurally flawed: the investigation was unreasonable, the disciplinary hearing lacked proper notice, and the appeal was conducted by a manager who had attended the disciplinary hearing.
Compensation was reduced:
- Basic award: £856.50
- Compensatory award: £7,169.86
- Polkey reduction of 25% (chance of dismissal even with a fair process)
- Contributory conduct reduction of 50% (claimant's own conduct contributed to dismissal)
- Total damages: £8,026.36
The claimant was also awarded £2,308.63 for unpaid wages and holiday pay.
Lessons & takeaways
- A fair investigation must include interviewing the employee and giving them a chance to respond to evidence before any disciplinary hearing.
- Disciplinary hearings require proper notice that dismissal is a possible outcome, especially when gross misconduct is alleged.
- Making protected disclosures does not automatically protect against dismissal if the employer can show a fair reason and process.
- Employees who contribute to their own dismissal through misconduct can expect significant reductions in compensation.
- The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures should be followed; failure to do so can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
The case in practice
This case shows how even a clear act of misconduct — editing a timesheet to pay an employee for hours not worked — can lead to an unfair dismissal finding if the employer's process is flawed. The area manager had three years' service and was dismissed for gross misconduct, but the tribunal found that the investigation was 'unreasonable' because he was not interviewed and was not given the evidence against him beforehand. The disciplinary hearing also lacked proper notice that dismissal was a potential outcome.
What the employer could have done differently
Hamble Foods Limited could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by conducting a more thorough investigation. This should have included interviewing the claimant and giving him a chance to respond to the allegations before the disciplinary hearing. The employer also should have clearly warned the claimant that dismissal was a possible outcome. The appeal process was flawed because it was conducted by a manager who had attended the disciplinary hearing, undermining its independence.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in conduct dismissals. Even when an employee admits to misconduct, the employer must still follow a fair process. The tribunal applied a Polkey reduction of 25%, meaning there was a chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process, and a 50% reduction for contributory conduct, reflecting the claimant's own role in the dismissal. The total award of £8,026 reflects these reductions. The case also shows that protected disclosures do not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer can show a fair reason and process.
Similar cases
Team leader dismissed for defeating safety system wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a safety breach. The tribunal found the employer's process was inadequate and reduced compensation by 20% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
NHS worker unfairly dismissed over alleged toilet filming after biased investigation
A community healthcare professional was unfairly dismissed by Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust after a biased investigation into an allegation he tried to film a colleague in the ladies' toilets. The tribunal awarded £21,469.59.
Caretaker unfairly dismissed after council panel included complainants' spouses
A part-time caretaker was unfairly dismissed by Fordbridge Town Council after a disciplinary panel included the wife of a complainant and an appeal panel included the husband of a witness. The tribunal awarded £1,060.41.
Consultant gynaecologists dismissed for victimisation: unfair process but no compensation
Two long-serving consultant gynaecologists were unfairly dismissed by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because they would have been dismissed anyway and were wholly at fault.