Falsifying Work-From-Home Hours Could Lead to Fair Dismissal

Published : June 23, 2025

In Ms S Wiltshire v Bath Spa University Students Union, a senior finance co-ordinator has lost her unfair dismissal claim after she misrepresented her work-from-home hours. Her employer found that her falsified timesheets constituted gross misconduct, leading to her dismissal.

Below, we discuss what happened and the employment tribunal’s judgment. We then examine key factors employees should consider when working at home to ensure they don’t face similar consequences.

If you have any employment law questions or believe your rights have been breached, please contact Redmans Solicitors today. As sector specialists, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice. To begin, simply:

The Facts in Ms S Wiltshire v Bath Spa University Students Union

Background and Employment Overview

Ms S Wiltshire (“the Claimant”) began working as a senior finance co-ordinator for Bath Spa University Students Union (“the Respondent”) on 24 April 2017. Among other things, her tasks included managing income, invoices, expenses, and payments using QuickBooks and Fidelity systems.

Issues first arose in November 2023, when the conduct, performance, and well-being of the Claimant were brought into question. She had been refusing to undertake some of her regular duties and blamed stress-related stomach issues for her behaviour.

These concerns persisted into December and extended to the overall performance of the financial team. The Respondent believed the team’s service was below the expected standard and required improvement.

As a result, the Claimant and her team were asked to record the time spent on each of their duties. However, the Claimant refused, leading the Respondent to request Office 365 time logs from IT.

Work-From-Home Hours and Timesheet Discrepancies Identified

When the IT time logs were received, further issues became evident. Discrepancies were found between the system logs and the manual flexi-timesheets recorded by the Claimant, especially during her work-from-home hours.

Between 23 October and 12 January 2024, several incidents were identified in which the Claimant had overstated her working hours, particularly when remotely working from home. She had allegedly recorded earlier start times and later finish times, and had even claimed to have worked five hours on 20 December, when the IT logs only showed her as being active for 11 minutes. In total, these discrepancies amounted to a shortfall of 45 hours.

Following this discovery, an investigation was initiated, and on 22 January 2024, an investigation meeting was held. At such time, the Claimant was asked to explain the discrepancies, but she was unable to do so. She claimed that she’d undertaken some work on her personal laptop, though, so the investigation was paused until the following day to allow her some time to prove this.

However, when the next day came around, the Claimant couldn’t provide proof of work on her personal laptop that could explain the discrepancies in working hours. As a result, she was suspended on full pay while the Respondent investigated the matter further. The Claimant was then signed off with work-related stress symptoms.

Disciplinary Action Following Irregularities During Flexible Working

After a subsequent investigation, the Respondent determined that there was a disciplinary case to answer. Given the Claimant’s role and the matter’s seriousness, a disciplinary hearing was deemed the appropriate next course of action.

However, due to the deterioration of the Claimant’s well-being, the scheduled disciplinary hearing on 1 February was postponed. In the meantime, the Respondent provided the Claimant with support and discussed her right to raise a grievance if she so wished. Nonetheless, the Claimant was eager to have the matter concluded, so the disciplinary meeting was rearranged for 13 February.

The disciplinary hearing proceeded as scheduled, and following its conclusion, a further investigation was conducted. However, despite the Claimant’s various attempts to explain the discrepancies, which eventually totalled 53 hours and mostly arose during her work-from-home hours, no evidence was found to support her claims.

Having undertaken a thorough investigation, the Respondent determined, based on the available evidence and the balance of probabilities, that the Claimant had submitted falsified timesheets. Consequently, she was summarily dismissed on 29 February for gross misconduct. After she unsuccessfully appealed this decision, she then initiated employment tribunal proceedings on 19 June, claiming unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal quickly dismissed the Claimant’s case, stating her unfair dismissal claim was “unfounded.” This followed its determination of whether, first, the Respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, and second, whether the dismissal itself was fair.

On the first point, the tribunal ruled that the Respondent had, in fact, a fair reason for dismissal. This was because it genuinely believed that the Claimant had falsified timesheets, which could amount to gross misconduct and lead to dismissal if proven.

Because of this, the tribunal turned to considering whether the dismissal was fair in itself. On this point, it ruled that the Respondent had carried out a thorough investigation to understand the facts and had given the Claimant ample time to defend herself. While the Claimant argued that the logs had been manipulated, she could neither provide evidence to prove this nor explain the discrepancies concerning her work-from-home hours.

The tribunal went on to explain how the evidence pointed to the falsification of work time, which it claimed “[struck] at the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence.” Since the conduct in question constituted gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled that the dismissal was a reasonable response—whether or not other employers would have acted in the same way was irrelevant. Therefore, given the above findings, the unfair dismissal claim wasn’t upheld, and the Claimant’s case was dismissed.

WFH: The Dos and Don’ts When Working at Home 

While flexible working offers significant benefits to both employees and employers, the case above serves as a clear warning of how not to approach it. Work-from-home hours can provide incredible flexibility for workers, but individuals must remain accountable during these periods. Below are key dos and don’ts employees should follow to avoid disciplinary issues or dismissal while remotely working from home.

Work-From-Home Hours: The Dos

  1. Maintain Accurate and Honest Timesheets – When considering the case of Ms S Wiltshire v Bath Spa University Students Union, it’s clear that working hours must be recorded truthfully. The use of time-tracking tools or digital logs can help, but it’s essential not to misrepresent one’s working time. If an employee does, this can constitute gross misconduct and may lead to dismissal.
  2. Be Present and Punctual – A significant amount of trust is invested in flexible working. It’s, therefore, probably more essential than ever to start work on time and to be punctual for meetings. Logging in late or frequently missing meetings without a good reason could signal poor engagement or unreliability.
  3. Communicate Effectively and Proactively – To further demonstrate dedication when working from home, employees should maintain regular contact with their team and update their manager on their progress. Since flexible working can remove face-to-face contact, excellent communication can help avoid misunderstandings and showcase one’s professionalism.
  4. Maintain a Professional Environment – While employees might not be in the office, dressing appropriately for virtual meetings is still advisable. An employee’s remote setup can reflect their attitude toward work, so a tidy workspace can help reinforce their credibility.

Work-From-Home Hours: The Don’ts

  1. Falsify or Manipulate Work Records – Overstating hours worked at home is likely to be considered a serious disciplinary matter. As seen above, such behaviour may lead to suspension, dismissal, and the loss of an unfair dismissal claim.
  2. Go Silent or Unreachable During Work Hours – While maintaining good communication when working flexibility can demonstrate professionalism and accountability, being unresponsive can raise concerns about one’s commitment to their role. Should an employee ever require time offline, it’s wise to inform their team about it.
  3. Let Informality Undermine Professional Standards – Working at home is often more relaxing. That said, employees must avoid treating it like a day off. Wearing pyjamas all day or appearing disorganised in meetings can undermine how others perceive one’s performance and reliability.
  4. Let Home Distractions Affect Your Output – Household chores, social media, and hobbies can all be easy distractions when remotely working from home. Acknowledging this and setting boundaries is key to ensuring that focus and productivity aren’t affected.

Get Help With Redmans

If you have any questions about flexible working, please contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. As employment law specialists, we can analyse your circumstances and answer your queries.

To learn more about how we could help you now, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.