An ex- Deputy Security Manager’s claim for unfair dismissal was upheld by the Employment Tribunal (“ET”), after he was dismissed for working from his parent’s home in Cornwall (N Kitaruth v OSC Security Limited [2025]).
Mr Kitaruth (“the Claimant”) alleged that he had agreed with OCS Security Limited (“the Employer”) that he would be working from home for a week. He updated his Outlook calendar with the relevant dates, as per the Employer’s informal homeworking process. During this period, the Claimant was required to attend the London office, to which he replied that he was working from his parents’ home in Cornwall, as had been verbally agreed. The Employer stated that this had not been agreed, merely discussed, and that remote working requires employees to work from home as they need to be in proximity of the office to attend in person, if needed.
Following an investigation, it transpired that the Claimant had not been doing work from his parents’ home. He had failed to complete numerous tasks and had not attended meetings, including a client meeting, which brought the company into disrepute. The Claimant was given the opportunity to provide evidence to refute the allegations, but did not provide any. The Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct with immediate effect, following which he appealed. The appeal hearing was held many months later and the dismissal was upheld.
The ET looked at whether the dismissal had been fair. It was noted that a key witness, with whom the Claimant had the discussion about working from home, was not interviewed. It was unreasonable to expect the Claimant to provide written evidence of a verbal agreement and a fair dismissal process would have involved interviewing the relevant individuals during the investigation stage. The ET also held that the failure to clearly set out the alleged misconduct in the invitation to the disciplinary hearing and the delay in the appeal process was a breach of the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures, leading to a 20% uplift being awarded on compensation.
The award was then reduced by 50% to reflect the likelihood that the Claimant would have been dismissed if a fair process was carried out, i.e. if the other employee had been interviewed. It was accepted by the Employer that the Claimant genuinely believed it was agreed he could work from home. However, he did mislead management about working from his parents’ home rather than his own and in stating he was actually working during this time, despite not completing his tasks. There was a further deduction for the Claimant’s contributory fault because of his inability to adequately explain why he wasn’t completing his workload or responding to any messages.
As the ET has upheld the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal, a hearing to decide the compensation sum will be held on 16 April 2025.
Key points to note for employers:
- Ensure any remote working arrangements are evidenced in writing
- Clearly set out the allegations against an employee in their invitation to a disciplinary hearing
- Carry out a thorough disciplinary investigation, including interviewing all relevant witnesses
