13-06-2025
University WFH employee sacked for claiming she had worked five hours when she had in fact logged on for 11 minutes loses unfair dismissal case
A senior university employee, who worked from home, was sacked after claiming to have worked for five hours, despite having logged in for only 11 minutes.
Sharon Wiltshire was sacked from her senior finance co-ordinator role at Bath Spa University after bosses found 'major discrepancies' in 53 of the hours she had logged on her timesheets.
It was heard during a tribunal, held in Bristol, that these inconsistencies only appeared when the senior finance staff member worked remotely.
The Bath Spa University employee offered various explanations, many of which were disproved by bosses, before claiming her data had been 'altered'.
She was sacked after management found that she was guilty of falsifying her timesheets but Ms Wiltshire took the institution to a tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal.
But, her claims have since been dismissed in their entirety by an employment judge who found that her bosses had a 'genuine reason' to fire the senior employee.
Employment Judge Manjit Hallen said it was 'more likely' Ms Wiltshire, who had been working for the university since April 2017, hadn't been 'working at all times' when at home.
It was heard that as a part of her role, Ms Wiltshire was in charge of the day-to-day finance tasks of the institution, which is mostly known for its focus on the creative arts and humanities.
In the summer of 2023, the software used by the finance department was changed, which Ms Wiltshire found 'very difficult'.
Later that year, concerns were raised over Ms Wiltshire's 'performance and wellbeing'.
It was later heard the co-ordinator had refused to undertake tasks normally and there were 'incidents of rudeness' from her.
In light of this, Ms Wiltshire took some time off work but upon her return, her performance 'did not improve' as she continued refusing to undertake tasks allocated to her.
In December, Head of Finance Gail Boulton conducted a review into the finance team as the service provided by them was 'below the standard expected' and 'needed to be improved'.
As part of this, Ms Wiltshire was asked to log the tasks she was undertaking and how long these took to complete. But, it was heard that after a few days, Ms Wiltshire refused to complete the form.
The tribunal heard that during the investigations, Ms Boulton had grown concerned that the time logged did not correlate with her timesheets.
It was said that the 'most major discrepancies' appeared when Ms Wiltshire had been working from home.
Ms Boulton found that in an 11-week period, the co-ordinator had on 10 occasions recorded that she had started work earlier than she had logged on.
On six occasions she had recorded finishing later than she had logged off.
On four dates, she indicated she that she worked remotely outside of normal working hours - when there was 'no evidence' of this.
The tribunal heard that when Ms Wiltshire was working from the office, the IT Logs and timesheets matched 'almost perfectly'.
After discovering these discrepancies, Ms Boulton took advice on what to do, and it was decided that an investigatory meeting would take place.
Ms Wiltshire was suspended on full pay and was invited to a full disciplinary hearing to consider the allegation that she had 'falsified' her flexi time records.
During the meeting, the co-ordinator alleged that her timesheets had been 'altered' after she provided various different explanations as to why there were discrepancies.
She told the disciplinary panel that to the best of her knowledge, the hours declared on her time sheet over the 11-week period were 'true and accurate'.
But it was ultimately found that Ms Wiltshire had falsified her timesheets, and she was dismissed on February 29 last year for gross misconduct.
She was sacked and later took the university to tribunal on the basis of an unfair dismissal, which ahas since been quashed by an employment judge.
Judge Hallen concluded the institution had a 'genuine reason' to dismiss Ms Wiltshire, saying: ' I find that the [university] believed that [Ms Wiltshire] to be guilty of falsification of timesheets.
'In cross examination, [Ms Wiltshire] accepted that falsification of timesheets would amount to serious misconduct if the [university] concluded that the Claimant was guilty of falsifying her timesheets.
'[Bath Spa University's] disciplinary procedure, among other things, made clear that 'Theft, fraud or deliberate falsification of records' if proven amounted to gross misconduct.
'Therefore, I find that the reason for dismissal was conduct in this case.'
The judge said said explanations offered by Ms Wiltshire has to the discrepancies were 'insufficient'.
'It was more likely that [Ms Wiltshire] was not working at all times when at home especially in the morning when she said she was working,' she said.
'I find that dismissal for gross misconduct in this case was within the band of penalties.'
'It is clear to me that the decision to dismiss was reasonable for the following reasons... [Ms Wiltshire] was guilty of falsifying work time for which she was paid.
'Falsification is dishonest in nature and strikes at the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence.'
