Expense Claims And Disciplinary Proceedings

With dubious expense claims hitting the headlines recently, a

brief review of how this type of situation is regarded by

Employment Tribunals may help to provide some useful context for

the current media furore.

In the case of Brick Services Limited v Thompson, an employee

was accused of submitting a false expenses claim and was

subsequently dismissed. According to the employee, he had a hotel

receptionist add £27 to a receipt to cover drinks which he

had bought personally, but which in his opinion were a legitimate

business expense.

At the Employment Tribunal, it was established that for some

time the company had been putting pressure on the employee to agree

to less favourable terms and conditions of employment, which the

employee had continually refused to do.

The Tribunal found that the employer had leapt at the chance to

dismiss Mr Thompson, and had not performed a full and impartial

investigation into the matter as they should have done. Hence the

Tribunal ruled that the real reason behind the dismissal was the

refusal to agree to the new terms and conditions and not the false

expenses claim, and that the dismissal was therefore unfair.

Earlier this year, the case of East Lancashire Coach Builders v

Hilton provided a further insight into the way in which Employment

Tribunals treat disputed expenses claims in relation to

unfair dismissal.

Mr Hilton was dismissed for gross misconduct after he took his

wife with him on a business trip to Mexico and claimed her fare as

well as his own on expenses.

However, on closer examination there again proved to be more to

the case. At the time of the incident, three directors of the

company were negotiating a management buy-out of the business. Mr

Hilton was not included in the negotiations, and, while there was

no suggestion that they wanted to dismiss him, it would have been

in their interest for him to step down as Joint Managing

Director.

As Mr Hilton had a three-year rolling contract and it would have

been very costly for the company to break the contract, the

Tribunal concluded that the real reason behind his dismissal was

not his misconduct, but rather the expediency of the...