In the case of Mr G Palmer-Brown v DTSN Limited t/a Fordwich Arms the general manager of a Michelin star restaurant was sacked after a diner paid with cash and he was caught on CCTV pocketing it and binning the bill, a tribunal heard. Guy Palmer-Brown, 35, had taken the payment of £200 from a regular, wealthy customer who was well known for paying in cash, the hearing was told.
After another staff member highlighted a surprisingly low amount of cash from that night in the till, owner and acclaimed head chef Daniel Smith viewed CCTV footage from that night. The tribunal heard that Mr Smith, named Observer Young Chef of the Year in 2016, was shocked to see Mr Palmer-Brown collect the customer’s payment, walk to the end of the bar, count the cash before putting it in his pocket and then toss the bill into the waste bin.
The hearing was also told that later Mr Palmer-Brown even returned to the restaurant, when he felt he was under suspicion, turned the CCTV cameras off and tried to put the cash back. Mr Smith suspended him and, following an internal investigation, he was fired.
Mr Palmer-Brown appealed this dismissal. When this was rejected by Mrs Smith he sued, claiming wrongful dismissal and that he was dismissed before the internal investigation took place.
Employment Judge John Bertram Pritchard ruled against these claims at the tribunal, held remotely, saying it had been reasonable to sack him and Mr Smith and Mrs Smith had dealt with him fairly. He said: “The Tribunal is satisfied that both Mr Smith and Mrs Smith held a genuine belief in the Claimant’s misconduct, based on reasonable grounds following as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances.
“[Mr Palmer-Brown] was in a position of trust and a member of senior management. The decision to dismiss for the dishonesty shown by [Mr Palmer-Brown] was well within the band of reasonable responses.
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.
