The claimant worked for the respondent as a Quality Assurance Checker relating to Universal Credit. The issue leading to the case arose in September 2019 when the claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation. The investigation related to breaches of procedures and multiple unauthorised accesses to department computer systems.  

A complaint was raised in August 2019 by a member of the public (an ex-partner of the claimant) that the claimant had accessed her data and was sending her messages relating to her confidential information held on the departmental computers. The Benefits Security Team was able to identify the exact nature of the access and what the claimant could view. It was found that the claimant had accessed his former partner’s account on 92 days and sometimes multiple times within those days (a total of 315 accesses). A further similar complaint was received by the claimant’s ex-partner’s new partner. There were 44 accesses to the new partner’s information. The number of accesses was put to the claimant in a disciplinary meeting and he accepted that he had accessed the information but not as many times as was put forward. The decision made was to dismiss the claimant on the grounds of gross misconduct as it was contrary to the procedures and guidance on accessing computer records. Indeed, there was a Family and Friends Policy stating that staff must never access the information for friends or family which expressly included estranged partners. 

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In terms of the dismissal, the claimant alleges that he was not given a full opportunity to explain as he was not given a definition of what ‘legitimate business reason’ is when it comes to accessing documents. However, the minutes from the disciplinary meeting outlined that it was explained in the context of the claimant’s work relating to a customer making a claim or reporting a change. The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was based upon a reasonable belief of misconduct and that it fell within the band of reasonable responses. Accordingly, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. 

A claim of disability discrimination was made relating to PTSD and tinnitus.  Whilst they were found to be impairments the Tribunal was not given any evidence of how they had a substantial impact on the claimant’s day to day activities. As a result, the conditions were not regarded as falling within the definition outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.  Furthermore, the arguments made relating to a request to record the disciplinary meeting and being intimidated at the suspension meeting were not seen as treating the claimant less favourably on the basis of any disability. As a result, the disability discrimination claim was dismissed. 

Practical Lessons

The importance of having policies relating to proper use of computer equipment especially when it holds personal data is shown here. The express nature of the policy when it came to family and friends made the respondent’s case much easier to argue. Therefore, employers should be mindful of ensuring that such policies are up-to-date and have sufficient clarity so that employees are aware of what they can be using the computers/email for in the workplace. 

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: 
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/