Finance manager fails in unfair dismissal bid

Wednesday 16 November 2016

A finance manager who admitted he "cut corners” and was dismissed for gross misconduct, has lost his case for unfair dismissal.

Benedict Hampton took the case to the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal after he was dismissed by STM Fiduciare Limited in November 2012.

Mr Hampton claimed he had been unfairly dismissed and as such should receive 26 weeks’ pay by way of compensation, totalling £39,000 and six months’ notice pay of the same amount.  

But the Tribunal came down heavily in favour of STM Fiduciare, saying the company had taken “swift and fair steps” to suspend him and investigate what had happened. Their decision to fire Mr Hampton was taken “within the band of reasonable responses in all the circumstances.”

Mr Hampton’s claim was dismissed and no award was made in his favour.

Mr Hampton started working for the company in 2006 and the case centred around an incident six years later after he had been promoted to manager of the client services department at the firm.

The Tribunal said: “In October 2012 a meeting was held by two directors of the respondent (Fiduciare) during the course of which the termination of a client’s trust structure was authorised. The applicant (Mr Hampton) had responsibility for producing the documentation required for that process to be achieved in line with the respondent’s procedures. Once authority had been given, the applicant actioned the payment away of €3 million. (Euros)

“On November 8^th the respondent discovered that the required documentation had not been prepared prior to the structure being closed and that a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) was in place.

“This meant that dire consequences could follow the payment of money away without notifying the States of Jersey Police.

“On inquiring of the applicant what had taken place he admitted that he had cut corners and had not prepared the required documents even though he knew that a SAR was in place.

“On November 12^th the applicant was suspended pending an investigation. At the meeting at which he was suspended, the applicant again admitted his fault.”

Mr Hampton was dismissed for gross misconduct and even though he appealed to Fiduciare’s Chief Executive, the decision to sack him was confirmed the following month.

Mr Hampton claimed the investigation had been “flawed” and described himself as a “scapegoat.”

But the Tribunal unanimously decided Mr Hampton’s case should be dismissed, saying they were “very unimpressed” with his evidence.

It added: “The Tribunal was left with the distinct impression that he was either not telling the truth or was hiding some of the true picture when he gave his evidence.

“In addition, the Tribunal found that the applicant lied to the Managing Director when they spoke before the meeting took place on October 15^th when he was asked if everything had been ‘squared away.’ When he said yes to that question the applicant knew that there was a SAR. By contrast, the witnesses who appeared for the respondent came across as careful and credible.

“The criticism of the investigation were the crux of the case, according to the applicant’s Advocate and the Tribunal finds it was not flawed. The process was fair in all the circumstances. The appeal process was also fair.”