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 matter given the buy-out situation and his relationship with the other Directors.

Both these cases demonstrate that Tribunals are willing to look behind the apparent reasons for dismissals in expenses cases and establish the real reasons behind such actions if it is appropriate to the case.

Employers who find themselves in this kind of situation should ensure that a thorough and comprehensive investigation into the incident is carried out so that, should the need arise, they can later justify the dismissal and provide firm and objective reasons for it.

Technorati Tags: Employment Law, Employment Tribunal, Expense Claims