Employment Appeal Tribunal · [2026] EAT 132
NSL dismissed a parking enforcement officer after concluding that he had falsely logged a patrol.
Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.
Get legal helpQuick read
Use this to check
Practical read
Practical takeaways
NSL won some of its appeal, but not on unfair dismissal. The EAT upheld the tribunal's finding that its disciplinary process had been unfair even though the tribunal found Mr Bean had falsified a patrol record.
The difference matters. The tribunal reduced the compensatory award for unfair dismissal by 100% because it concluded dismissal would have happened anyway. It did not reduce the basic award. The EAT left both decisions intact.
Key points
Mr Bean had worked as a civil enforcement officer since 2007 and moved to NSL when it took over the council contract in December 2017. NSL knew that he had severe dyslexia. He had not previously been disciplined.
On 19 April 2019, he used a handheld device to log his route through Windsor. The device crashed four times in the morning. After lunch, he manually entered a short patrol from Alma Road to Ward Royal and back, lasting about 19 minutes. NSL read the GPS data as showing he stayed at the Coach Park and accused him of ghost logging. Mr Bean disputed that reading and said he had done the patrol.
Key points
Mr Bean entered the first meeting expecting a discussion about a late lunch. He was not told in advance that NSL suspected falsified records. He asked for support because of his dyslexia, then was asked to sign handwritten notes he could not read.
The later disciplinary pack included screenshots of an interactive, colour-coded GPS system. The copies supplied to him were in black and white, with no effective key to the coloured data. Overlapping labels also obscured relevant locations. NSL's own disciplinary manager spent hours with the live system trying to understand it, an opportunity Mr Bean and his representative did not have.
NSL held a disciplinary hearing, dealt with his grievance and dismissed him for gross misconduct on 26 June 2019. His appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful in November. The tribunal nevertheless found the clarity problems still mattered, and the EAT agreed the internal appeal had not fixed them.
Key points
The employment tribunal made two separate assessments. It found by a majority that Mr Bean had committed gross misconduct and would have been dismissed in any event. That supported reducing his compensatory award for unfair dismissal by 100%.
The basic award was a different question. The tribunal was entitled to decide that, despite his conduct, reducing it would not be just and equitable. Mr Bean was not responsible for the way NSL presented the allegation and evidence to him. The EAT upheld the tribunal's exercise of that judgment.
NSL knew of Mr Bean's severe dyslexia when his employment transferred. It thought he managed his normal duties well, but a disciplinary interview involved unfamiliar handwritten notes and pressure to sign at the end of the meeting. The tribunal found that placed him at a substantial disadvantage compared with someone without his disability.
The EAT upheld the finding that NSL should have let him take the notes away for review with help before signing. Mr Bean did not first have to suggest that particular solution himself. The duty to consider a reasonable adjustment was the employer's.
The tribunal had also upheld indirect-discrimination and two harassment complaints. The EAT said those findings did not contain the analysis required by the Equality Act 2010. Indirect discrimination requires examination of the disadvantage to a group as well as the individual, followed by a separate justification assessment. The original decision focused on Mr Bean alone and mixed up justification with the duty to make adjustments.
On harassment, the tribunal had not adequately explained why the conduct was related to disability or how it met the required test for its effect. NSL's appeal therefore succeeded on these points. The EAT reserved formal disposal pending further submissions, so the judgment should not be read as finally resolving the claims.
If a disciplinary allegation relies on technical records, the worker needs a comprehensible explanation of the allegation and the evidence in a format they can use. A later appeal should be assessed on whether it genuinely resolves the original difficulty, not simply whether another meeting took place.
When a known disability affects a worker's ability to take part in a process, think about the process itself even if the worker has performed well in their regular role. Here, a simple delay before signing notes was the adjustment upheld. The decision remains fact-specific: it does not turn every disputed GPS record into an unfair dismissal or every awkward remark into unlawful harassment.
No. A majority of the employment tribunal preferred the GPS data and found that Mr Bean had falsely recorded his whereabouts. The EAT did not overturn that factual finding. It upheld the separate conclusion that the dismissal was unfair because of the way NSL explained the allegation and evidence during the process.
Unfair dismissal asks whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the reason as sufficient to dismiss, considering the whole process. Here the GPS evidence was hard to interpret and the allegations were not made clear enough. The tribunal found those problems significant even after the internal appeal. The finding that dismissal would have occurred anyway was reflected in compensation, not by declaring the process fair.
The tribunal reduced the compensatory award by 100% because of its finding about his conduct and the inevitability of dismissal. It did not reduce the basic award. The EAT left those decisions in place. The judgment does not give a final amount for the basic award in the appeal.
It should have allowed Mr Bean to take the handwritten notes away and review them with help before asking him to sign. The employer knew he had severe dyslexia. The EAT explained that doing his ordinary job successfully did not remove the need to consider disadvantage in a very different setting, an investigation meeting.
The EAT allowed NSL's appeals on those findings because the tribunal had not properly analysed group disadvantage and justification for indirect discrimination, or explained the statutory elements of harassment. It reserved formal disposal for further submissions. This decision alone does not establish the final outcome of those claims.
No. Although companionship was discussed among the alleged workplace practices, the adjustment finding upheld on appeal concerned taking the notes away for review with help before signing. Other facts and statutory rights may affect who can accompany a worker, but this judgment is not a blanket ruling about companions at every investigation meeting.
EAT rules on GPS evidence and dyslexia in disciplinary process
The EAT upheld an unfair-dismissal finding despite misconduct, and upheld a reasonable-adjustments finding about signing investigation notes. It allowed appeals on indirect discrimination and harassment, with formal disposal reserved.