A council worker who said he was working when he was in fact at home, and who used the council’s van while off-duty, has lost his claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
David Beveridge, who worked for Caerphilly County Borough Council for 16 years, was sacked in October last year after being found guilty of gross misconduct.
His appeal against the ruling was dismissed by a panel of councillors in March and now, following a remote hearing, Employment Judge Barry Clarke has backed the decision.
The tribunal heard that for the last eight years Beveridge was employed on £33,000 a year as area parks officer and was on flexitime, which meant he was trusted to submit his correct working hours. He was also allowed half an hour for lunch.
When the tracking on his council-owned van was checked it was found to have often been parked outside his home much longer at lunchtimes and he sometimes did not start as early as he should have done in the morning.
In response, Beveridge claimed that the time was spent checking and sending emails and on other work-related duties.
In addition to being parks officer he had another job as Pavilions Attendant through an employment agency and the investigation also revealed that he was using his council-owned van in that role at weekends and at other times.
Beveridge, who argued that the investigation was triggered by ill-feeling between him and his manager, said he when he was told that the van was for “work purposes” he took that to include his work as Pavilions Attendant, which was indirectly for the council.
He was suspended in April last year and said the investigation was far from thorough, but Employment Judge Clarke rejected his claim and said there was “a reasonable basis” for believing that he had committed gross misconduct.
Beveridge was sacked by Rob Hartshorn, the council’s head of policy and public protection, and the Judge said that dismissal was a reasonable step given that he found that Beveridge “had acted with wilful dishonesty and gained a financial advantage by doing so”.
“Because dishonesty strikes at the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence between an employer and an employee it was open to Mr Hartshorn to place no weight on Mr Beveridge’s lengthy period of prior service,” he added.
The Judge said his own assessment of the evidence was that, on the balance of probabilities, the parks officer abused the flexitime system to receive pay for hours he had not worked.
Support quality, independent local news Help fund public-interest journalism in Caerphilly County Borough from just £1 a month and enjoy an advert-free website experience. Become a member today →
With regards to Mr Beveridge there is an underlying accountability weakness in the council’s workforce structure. Surely over the length of time the alleged work misdemeanours occurred ,a more professional work accountability set up it would have noted and corrected this seemingly amateurish responsibility control . If this is the norm how many more are having a field day with their uncontrolled work time to the the obvious cost to the local tax payer ?
Plenty more where this guy came from.CCBC is full of `em
As a community resident who has previously witnessed and benefited from the obvious dedication and love for his job that Mr Beveridge had, I am saddened that for all the years of service, his word is not seen as having value. Having also been witness to another case regarding an employment issue within the Council and observed the procedures taken by the very same Investigating Officer responsible in Mr Beveridge’s case, I know that I would put much more faith in the word of Mr Beveridge than that of his superiors. It seems to me that with no formal procedure to prove accountability, it comes down to the the word of one man against that of another.
Mr Beveridge is a very decent human being and if he says this is what happened then this is the truth. Mr Beveridge you are better off from there.
If people only read the full judgement they would clearly see that this man had been up to no good for some considerable time. He seemed to have spent more time in his own house or his girlfriends and claiming time for doing another job and using a council vehicle (at our expense) to do so. Disguisting, I’m not quite sure why people are supporting his actions. Not everyone is wrong, the investigation showed wrongdoing, he was sacked, the appeal upheld that decision and so did the judge!!