Manager's Dismissal For False Investigation Report Which Covered Up Her Own Misconduct Was Not Wrongful

Dishonesty in investigation report was a fundamental breach of contract.

Wrongful dismissal occurs where an employer dismisses an employee in breach of the employment contract. A summary dismissal (a dismissal without notice) will be wrongful if the employee has not committed a "repudiatory" breach of contract. A repudiatory breach by an employee is one that gives the employer the right to choose to end the contract or to affirm it. That is, where the breach is of a term which is fundamental to, or goes to the heart of, the contract. Putting it simply, the employee's conduct has to be serious enough for the employer to treat the contract as terminated.

Wrongful dismissal awards will be limited by the amount the employee would have been paid in their notice period or (if longer) the time it would have taken to carry out any contractual dismissal procedure.

The key question for a tribunal in a wrongful dismissal claim is whether the employee committed a repudiatory breach of contract and so whether the employer was entitled to dismiss the employee without notice. A recent EAT case has considered whether an employee's dishonesty about her own misconduct was a fundamental breach of contract and grounds for summary dismissal.

Case details: Human Kind Charity v Gittens

Ms Gittens was employed as an Area Manager for the predecessor organisation to Human Kind Charity (the Employer). She was responsible for a team of 30 people and a budget of £1 million. She was not a member of the senior management team, a company director or a trustee. Ms Gittens' team had the use of an IPad on which mobile data charges accrued. A bill for £8,523 in data charges was received by the Employer. Ms Gittens was asked by her line manager to carry out an investigation into how this amount had been incurred. Ms Gittens stated that she was not the right person to carry out the investigation as she had allowed the IPad to be used and that she had not been aware of the data charges accruing. She offered her resignation but was persuaded to withdraw it and to undertake the investigation.

Ms Gittens stated in the investigation report that she could not narrow down the bill charges to any one person and did not think it fair for anyone to be blamed for the bill as there had been no intentional wrongdoing. The line manager did not consider the investigation report adequate and commissioned an investigation by another person. Ms Gittens then admitted that the IPad had been in...