In Blake v The Home Office, Blake was employed as an administration office in the Immigration Enforcement Team. By her own admission, she accepted and concealed approximately £200 from an Immigration Offender before returning it to him. Blake reported the incident. The employer decided that she did not do so in a timely manner as required by the Home Office Guidance in the Bribery Act 2010. She was suspended pending an investigation into her alleged breach of the employer’s Anti-fraud and Corruption Policy. A full investigation took place. Following a disciplinary hearing, Blake was dismissed for gross misconduct. Her appeal was unsuccessful.

An employment tribunal found the dismissal to be fair. There was a reasonable investigation and Blake was given every opportunity to put her case. Her explanation about the incident was inconsistent with CCTV evidence and her evidence about when she reported the incident was not borne out by computerised records. This raised grave concerns about Blake’s honesty and integrity and the employer was entitled to reach the conclusion that she had taken a bribe. Blake was aware of and had been trained on anti-corruption and bribery. She carried out an important public function, where she was expected to act impartiality and with a high degree of trust and integrity. Blake’s serious misconduct had resulted in a loss of trust meaning that dismissal was the only possible sanction and therefore her claim of unfair dismissal failed.

The case shows the value of employers clearly setting out their policies on key employment issues and making sure they are properly communicated and ‘trained in’. This is particularly the case where new employment-related legislation comes into force such as the Bribery Act, which so far has not received much exposure but, as this case also demonstrates, certainly ‘packs a punch’. Evidence via CCTV involving interactions between staff and staff and customers can also be very valuable, but again there has to be a clear policy and employers must ensure they follow the guidance in the ‘Data protection code of practice for surveillance cameras and personal information.’

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. 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, SM&B 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.