On the 13th November 2009 the BBC news website published details of an Employment Tribunal case that had taken place on 9th March 2007.

The claim involved a car hire firm in Falkirk and was raised by a former employee following her dismissal with the employee arguing she had been subject to harassment and had never received an employment contract.

At the time the matter went to Tribunal it appears that the estimated value of the claim for compensation was £1750 but at the conclusion of proceedings the Tribunal had imposed an award of £29,500 against the employer. The obvious question is why had the matter taken so long to come to the attention of the press?

The answer is that the Employment Tribunal was not the conclusion of proceedings against the employer concerned.

During the Tribunal the employer had sought to rely upon documents that he had submitted in support of his case. This included a contract of employment, which the employee had claimed never to have received, and a letter of warning apparently signed by the employee.

The difficulty for the employer was that the employee was able to produce documents bearing her signature which differed from those supplied by the employer. As such there is perhaps little surprise in the Tribunal finding in the employees favour.

Indeed when contacted by the Police the employer made full admissions that he had forged the documents, had attempted to influence the judgement of the Tribunal in this manner and as such was guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The matter was then escalated to Edinburgh Sheriff Court for the employer to face the Criminal charge of perverting the course of justice.

The employer’s defence agent indicated that, “In the course of proceedings, he realised certain procedures had not been followed by himself and in particular no written contract of employment had been issued by him.” Further he added, “By the close of business he knew he would have to go into the witness box and he was worried about criminal proceedings.”

As well he should have been as Sheriff Isabella McColl said the case was one of the most serious cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice she had seen. She told the employer that the system of justice relied upon honest evidence and to produce forged documents at the Employment Tribunal undermined the whole system.

Therefore to add to the Tribunal’s award the employer also had imposed upon him a custodial sentence of 4 months imprisonment to take into account the severity of the situation.

Clearly the case involved extreme actions having been taken by the employer in question in a vain attempt to prevent a claim raised by his former employee but it does serve as a stark reminder of the very serious nature of the Employment Tribunal process.

While the Tribunals themselves may have a more “relaxed” or “informal” feel than a County or Sheriff Court that in terms of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 they meet the definition of “court” in that they represent  a “tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State”. So although Tribunals have no express power to punish for contempt of court any suspicion of such actions can be reported for further actions against those involved.

The impact of such actions, as can be seen clearly in this case, can have disastrous consequences for those involved.