An employment tribunal has dismissed a claim of unfair dismissal brought by a senior employee who was sacked after being found to have logged only 11 minutes of work during a five-hour period while working from home.
Sharon Wiltshire, formerly a senior finance co-ordinator at Bath Spa University Students’ Union, was dismissed for gross misconduct following an internal investigation into her timesheet records.
Wiltshire, who joined the union in April 2017, was responsible for the day-to-day financial tasks of the organisation. Discrepancies between her timesheets and IT log-in records came to light during a period of performance concerns and internal review. Her dismissal was upheld by the tribunal, which concluded the organisation had a genuine reason to believe she had falsified records.
Employment Judge Manjit Hallen ruled that the decision to dismiss Wiltshire fell within the band of reasonable responses, adding that her explanations for the discrepancies were unconvincing. The tribunal found that her conduct undermined the essential relationship of trust and confidence required between employer and employee.
Discrepancies limited to remote work periods
Concerns about Wiltshire’s work began in 2023 following changes to the finance department’s software, which she reportedly found difficult. Issues around performance and behaviour led to her being asked to log tasks and their duration. However, she later refused to comply with this request.
An internal investigation led by Head of Finance Gail Boulton identified discrepancies in 53 hours of logged time during an 11-week period. These irregularities were found only during periods when Wiltshire worked remotely. When working from the office, her timesheets and system login records matched closely.
The review revealed several instances where Wiltshire recorded earlier start times and later end times than the system showed. On other occasions, she claimed to be working remotely at hours when no activity was logged. She also submitted timesheets indicating she was working outside standard hours, with no supporting evidence.
Dismissal deemed reasonable under disciplinary policy
Following the findings, Wiltshire was suspended on full pay and attended a disciplinary hearing. During this process, she offered several explanations for the discrepancies, at one point suggesting her timesheets may have been altered. The disciplinary panel rejected these claims, finding her responsible for falsifying records.
She was dismissed on 29 February for gross misconduct under the union’s disciplinary policy, which lists deliberate falsification of records as grounds for dismissal. Wiltshire later brought a claim for unfair dismissal, which has now been rejected.
Judge Hallen concluded that the employer acted reasonably. “It is more likely that [Ms Wiltshire] was not working at all times when at home especially in the morning when she said she was working,” the judgment stated.
The judge added that the misconduct struck at the core of the employment relationship. “Falsification is dishonest in nature and strikes at the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence,” Hallen said.
