£60K Unfair Dismissal Payout for Sales Manager Who Was Sacked for Working Remotely

In Mr Tanveer Shah v Food Hub Limited, a former sales manager has been awarded over £60,000 after being sacked for working remotely. His employer initially dismissed him, before realising the potential legal repercussions. It then sought to undertake a “fair” disciplinary procedure, but the employment tribunal saw right through.

Read on to uncover exactly what happened and the explanation behind the tribunal’s judgment. We outline when a dismissal is considered fair under UK law, and where Food Hub Limited went wrong.

If you’ve been dismissed from work and believe it was an unfair termination, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As employment law specialists, we can answer your questions, discuss your options, and assess your eligibility to make a claim.

Find out how we can help you now by:

• Phoning us on 020 3397 3603
• Filling out our online form to request a callback

The Facts in Mr Tanveer Shah v Food Hub Limited

Background to Claimant Being Sacked for Working Remotely

Mr Tanveer Shah (“the Claimant”) began working as a field sales executive for Food Hub Limited (“the Respondent”) in 2018. Having excelled, he was promoted in August 2020 to regional field account manager, overseeing five other field sales executives. Less than a year later, and following a departure, he received a further promotion to UK field sales manager.

Read More: Employee Wins Unfair Dismissal Case but has Compensation Cut by 100% (Mr K Ahmed v National Westminster Bank PLC)

However, following issues with the field sales team’s performance, a review meeting was scheduled with the Claimant. It was the Respondent’s practice that a six-month trial period would follow any internal promotions. The review raised concerns regarding his failure to mentor his team, which led to an extension of his trial period.

Remotely Working From Egypt? Claimant’s Whereabouts Questioned

In January 2022, Mr Simon Farmer joined the Respondent, and following an induction, he became the Claimant’s new line manager. Shortly after, Mr Farmer and Mr Ardian Mula, the Respondent’s CEO, learned that the Claimant was in Egypt without having obtained authorised leave. The exact length of time he was in Egypt, however, remained unclear, even during employment tribunal proceedings.

The pair initially became suspicious of the Claimant’s whereabouts following changes to the Respondent’s company vehicle scheme. Due to employee complaints about the tax implications of having a company vehicle, the Respondent switched to offering an allowance.

Yet, in February, Mr Farmer found that the Claimant hadn’t purchased his own vehicle. He emphasised that this had to be rectified in the following two weeks, but the situation left Mr Mula believing that the Claimant was looking for excuses not to fulfil his field duties.

This led to a meeting with the Claimant on 14 March, where it was the Respondent’s intention to suspend him for failing to follow a reasonable management instruction, in that he hadn’t purchased a vehicle. To the Respondent’s surprise, though, the Claimant had obtained one and was therefore only provided with a “warning of disciplinary consequences.” This outlined that he was required to be in the field four days per week; failure to do so would constitute gross misconduct, which could result in summary dismissal.

Claimant Dismissed, Appeals and Then Suspended

While undertaking a review of the previous month’s expenses on 1 August, Mr Mula identified an anomaly in the Claimant’s account. The expenses he’d claimed were far lower than the rest of his team, and given his role was a national one, Mr Mula expected to see the opposite.

This discovery was relayed to Mr Farmer, leading the pair to have a meeting with the Claimant on 2 August. It was Mr Mula’s belief that the Claimant had travelled on various occasions over the past three months, prompting him to ask how many times the Claimant had been in the field over the previous 60 days.

An angry discussion proceeded, during which Mr Mula accused the Claimant of “stealing money from the company” and “illegitimately taking a salary.” He concluded by immediately dismissing the Claimant for gross misconduct.

Three days later, the Claimant appealed his dismissal from work. In his appeal, he said, “I was informed that Ardian Mula wanted to have a ‘catch up’. During the meeting I was unceremoniously dumped, sacked from my role of almost 5 years with immediate effect!”

An appeal hearing then took place on 12 August, resuming on 15 August following an adjournment. Ultimately, the Respondent decided to reverse the dismissal decision as it hadn’t followed its own disciplinary procedure. Nonetheless, the Claimant remained suspended while it investigated whether the Claimant had fulfilled his field duties.

Sacked for Working Remotely: Unfair Termination Claim Brought

On 22 August, the Claimant attended an investigation meeting, during which he was asked whether he’d been remotely working from Egypt. The Claimant explained that he’d holidayed there but contracted Covid, preventing him from returning to the UK. He admitted that, at such time, he did work remotely, but couldn’t confirm the exact period he was there.

The meeting was adjourned and resumed the following day. When it did, the Respondent questioned the Claimant on his lack of expense claims, trying to ascertain whether he’d been out in the field undertaking his duties. In the Respondent’s opinion, the Claimant provided unsatisfactory explanations to justify his account, leading it to conclude that “there was a case to answer.”

Read More: £56K Awarded to Woman Asked Why She Wanted to Work — Tribunal Deems It Unwanted Conduct

This was relayed to the Claimant on 24 August, when he was informed that the matter was proceeding to a disciplinary hearing. He was told that the evidence suggested he hadn’t adhered to a reasonable management request—in that he was required to be field-based for 80% of his work—and that dismissal was a potential outcome.

The disciplinary hearing proceeded on 30 August and, following an adjournment, continued on 1 September. Throughout the meeting, disputes arose concerning whether expenses claimed by the Claimant were used for personal or work purposes, with the latter potentially indicating that he was undertaking his field duties.

By 5 September, though, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant informing him of his dismissal for the second time. This time, the Claimant chose not to appeal and instead, following Acas early conciliation, initiated employment tribunal proceedings. Among his claims, he alleged direct and indirect discrimination, breach of contract and unfair dismissal from work.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Claimant was Unfairly Sacked for Working Remotely

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal assessed the Claimant’s case, which included a claim of unfair dismissal. Under UK law, a dismissal is fair if it’s based on a fair reason and follows a fair procedure. There are five potentially fair reasons:

1. Conduct
2. Capability (including qualifications),
3. Redundancy,
4. Statutory restriction, and
5. “Some other substantial reason” (SOSR).

In this case, misconduct was the stated reason for dismissal, which is potentially fair. During deliberations, the tribunal noted that whether the Claimant had failed to follow a reasonable management instruction was highly debatable. While there were disputes over his expenses, his resistance to field work raised doubts about whether he’d undertaken it.

The tribunal described the case as “borderline,” observing that some employers might have accepted the Claimant’s account, while others could reasonably have doubted it and concluded he had failed to comply. On that basis, the reason for dismissal could have been considered fair.

However, the tribunal’s findings on procedure were more decisive. While the disciplinary process appeared to follow the correct steps, including an appeal, investigation, and suspension, it was in fact “superficial.” The Respondent had already dismissed the Claimant and only retracted that decision after recognising the risk of legal consequences.

In the tribunal’s view, the Respondent pursued a disciplinary process aimed at justifying dismissal, rather than genuinely investigating the allegations. Flaws were identified throughout, including errors in its evidence of the Claimant’s expenses. These shortcomings led the tribunal to conclude that the Claimant’s termination was unfair.

All other claims were dismissed, but on his successful claim, he was awarded £61,419.50. It comprised a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £58,850.

Sacked for Working Remotely? Get Help

If you’re a remote worker who’s been unfairly dismissed from work and want an unfair dismissal solicitor, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment experts who can discuss how you can proceed following a quick chat.

Begin your journey with us now by:

• Giving us a call directly on 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form