Financial Consultant Fairly Dismissed for Failing to Disclose Bankruptcy
In a recent case, a financial consultant was fairly dismissed for failing to disclose his bankruptcy, despite the absence of any express contractual provision or policy requiring him to do so.
Case of Dismissal for Gross Conduct
In the case of Mr K Pubbi v Your-Move.co.uk, Mr Pubbi was employed as a financial consultant by Your-Move.co.uk (the company) between May 2015 and July 2018. The company is an estate agency which also arranges mortgages and offers various insurance products. In early 2018, Mr Pubbi was signed off sick. He was made bankrupt shortly after this and did not inform the company. The company discovered Mr Pubbi had been declared bankrupt via a Google search.
The company initially thought Mr Pubbi was required by the Financial Conduct Authority to disclose his bankruptcy. This was not technically the case and was later clarified.
Nevertheless, the company carried out a disciplinary investigation in relation to Mr Pubbi's failure to disclose his bankruptcy, and invited him to a disciplinary hearing. The company accepted that at the time, it did not have a written fitness or proprietary policy, but concluded that Mr Pubbi was no longer considered to be a 'fit and proper person'. Mr Pubbi was summarily dismissed for gross conduct on 16 July 2018. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed his claims and found that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair. Mr Pubbi appealed the to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
What Did the EAT Decide?
The EAT concluded that the ET had properly found the principal reason for dismissal was Mr Pubbi's deliberate non-disclosure of the bankruptcy. The company was reasonably entitled to conclude Mr Pubbi should have known he would be expected to disclose his bankruptcy, given his professional experience. Mr Pubbi also indicated he had been intending to disclose the bankruptcy, which showed some recognition and acknowledgment on his part of an expectation to disclose it. Mr Pubbi had previous experience working in the financial sector and had been informed that he would be subject to financial monitoring at the outset of his employment with the company. The EAT found it was not decisive in this case and that there was no express contractual provision requiring disclosure.
The EAT found that the ET had properly considered the issue of procedural fairness, and had found that Mr Pubbi was fairly dismissed. The EAT can only interfere where there is an error in law and the EAT found that the ET did not err in any of the grounds of appeal. It therefore dismissed the appeal.
Always Ensure Staff Codes and Review Staff Contracts
This case serves as a useful reminder to ensure staff codes of conduct and disciplinary rules properly reflect any sector-specific requirements that might apply to staff in your organisation. It is also sensible to review staff contracts in order to check that bankruptcy is expressly listed as a ground for summary dismissal.