In Miller v William Hill Organisation Ltd, Miller was a betting shop deputy manager. During a security audit, four bets handled by Miller did not match up with CCTV footage. Miller was summarily dismissed for taking money that should have been paid to customers, despite her explanation that the stakes and winnings were handed over at times not shown on the nine segments of CCTV footage viewed by the employer. The tribunal found the dismissal fair as the investigation had been thorough enough for the employer to form a genuine belief in Miller’s misconduct. The EAT disagreed, holding that Miller had been unfairly dismissed. Where there are allegations of criminal behavior, the most careful investigation must be conducted, in particular seeking evidence that might exonerate the employee, because of the serious consequences for the employee's reputation and future employability. William Hill’s failure to view the whole of the CCTV footage meant that the investigation was not reasonable in the circumstances, particularly as looking at the footage would not have taken long and would have incurred no expense. So, the more serious the allegation, the more extensive the investigation needs to be, including looking for evidence that may get the employee “off the hook” and not just evidence that supports a genuine belief in guilt.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
