Project manager dismissed for planting listening device: tribunal upholds dismissal
A project manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after a listening device was found in his boss's office, with wires leading to his desk. The Liverpool tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #covert-surveillance
- #listening-device
- #gross-misconduct
- #small-employer
- #limited-resources
- #acas-code
Key facts
- A listening device was discovered in the managing director's office with wires leading to a box on the claimant's desk.
- The claimant had been employed for over 21 years as a project manager.
- The respondent is a small engineering company with about 15 employees.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.
- The appeal was considered in the claimant's absence and not upheld.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Cook began working for Greenhey as a project manager.
-
Microphone discovered
Mr Fernandes and Mr Sephton found a microphone in the office wall.
-
Device located at claimant's desk
The wires from the microphone were traced to a black box next to Mr Cook's desk.
-
Claimant suspended
Mr Cook was suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Suspension letter sent
Formal suspension letter with allegations of covert surveillance was sent.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Cook attended an investigation meeting with Mr Sephton.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Mr Cook was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 22 Feb 2021.
-
Disciplinary hearing (part 1)
First part of the disciplinary hearing, adjourned for further evidence.
-
Disciplinary hearing (part 2)
Resumed hearing where Mr Cook cross-examined witnesses.
-
Dismissal
Mr Cook was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal decision
Appeal not upheld by Mr Fernandes.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct after a listening device was discovered, and whether the investigation and disciplinary process were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the dismissal was fair.
- The employer had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the claimant had placed a listening device in the managing director's office.
- The investigation was reasonable given the size of the company (15 employees) and the resources available.
- The disciplinary process included a two-part hearing, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and an appeal.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the employer carries out a reasonable investigation and follows a fair procedure.
- Small employers are not expected to have the same resources as large ones, but they must still act reasonably within their means.
- Covert surveillance of colleagues is likely to be treated as gross misconduct, justifying summary dismissal.
- A fair appeal process, even if the employee does not attend, can help support the reasonableness of the dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates that even an employee with over 21 years of service can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct when the evidence is strong and the employer follows a reasonable process. The claimant, a project manager, was dismissed after a listening device was found in the managing director's office, with wires leading to a box on his desk. The employer, a small engineering company with about 15 employees, conducted an investigation and disciplinary hearing before deciding to dismiss.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant was responsible for the covert surveillance. The investigation was thorough enough for a small company: the device was discovered, wires were traced, and the claimant was suspended and given a chance to respond. The disciplinary hearing was held in two parts to allow further evidence, and the claimant was able to cross-examine witnesses. An appeal was also considered, even though the claimant did not attend.
Why the result matters
This case confirms that tribunals will take a pragmatic view of what is a reasonable investigation for a small employer. The key is not perfection but a genuine attempt to get to the truth and a fair process. For employees, it is a reminder that serious misconduct, especially involving privacy breaches, can override long service. For employers, it shows that following a structured process, even with limited resources, can successfully defend a dismissal.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
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.
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Expense claim misrepresentation led to fair dismissal for financial services analyst
A senior analyst with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after submitting an expense claim that included his partner's meals and then denying it during investigation. The tribunal upheld Citibank's decision.