A senior executive on £110,000-a-year who was sacked after trying to claim £60,000 in expenses has won an unfair dismissal case.
Paolo Porchetti was offered a settlement package by his bosses to leave the company after they became "immensely frustrated" by his poor work.
But the employee saw negotiations for this settlement abandoned - with his managers firing him instead - after he submitted a huge expenses claim from three years’ worth of receipts that he’d kept in a shoebox.
Porchetti also shocked his bosses by returning a company car that needed thousands of pounds worth of repairs and a broken laptop.
However, the sacked employee has now won an unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal ruled there were faults in how he was fired.
The hearing was told the Italian - who has an MBA - began work as a sales director at engineering giant Brush Electrical Machines in 2015.
During his career, the company had invested "significant cost" in relocating Porchetti to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
He also benefited from a £20,000 signing-on bonus, a company car, regular flights to Europe and accommodation allowance.
In the Malaysian capital, Porchetti was sales director for the Asia Pacific region - but the tribunal heard how bosses soon grew frustrated with him.
The hearing was told how he repeatedly scored around 30% on monthly personal objective scores, was late for meetings and not quick enough in replying to big customers.
Have you got a workplace tribunal story to tell? Get in touch: mirror.money.saving@mirror.co.uk
Porchetti was also said to have neglected work, and “seemed to go missing”.
His territory was described as the worst performing in the company, the tribunal was told.
The hearing also heard Porchetti was focused on taking an MBA in Hong Kong - where his partner lived - and repeatedly flew out there for a week at a time despite there being little work there.
Before he was sacked, Porchetti was urged by his line manager Marco Van Schaik to “put some more effort in” and improve his performance.
Mr Van Schaik told the hearing the only reason Porchetti achieved one financial target “was by luck because a customer placed a large order in the value £700,000”.
By May 2019, a senior Brush boss invited him to a meeting - which the tribunal heard he was 45 minutes late for - and offered him a settlement agreement to depart the company with six months salary.
Porchetti accepted but didn't reveal he had a £60,000 expense claim “because he knew it would jeopardise the settlement discussions”.
The expenses amounted to £59,252.43, with some claims dating back to late 2015/2016, but Brush limited its offer to £10,000 before talks broke down.
The tribunal's judgement said: "Mr Porchetti mentioned that he had three years' worth of expenses to claim, the receipts/evidence for which he had kept in a shoebox.
"[But he] deliberately chose not to disclose or reveal the extent of them at that stage because he knew it would jeopardise the settlement discussions.”
"Brush was shocked by both the amount of expenses claimed and the fact Mr Porchetti had failed to submit them earlier in accordance with the expenses policy which requires any expenses to be submitted within 14 days.”
Instead of paying him off, the company decided to sack him.
Employment Judge Victoria Butler ruled Brush was right to dismiss Mr Porchetti but said it was unfair because it was carried out quickly and lacked proper procedure.
Judge Butler added: "The predominant reason for Mr Porchetti's dismissal was capability and it is clear... that his performance was poor.
"This was apparent from early on in his employment when he failed to supply documents required to support his visa application in a timely manner - a simple, yet crucial, task - thereby demonstrating his inability to prioritise matters.
"The same can be said of Mr Porchetti's failure to submit his expenses over a three-year period amounting to circa £60,000.
"The Claimant's neglect in doing so was not only another example of his inability to keep on top of things.”
She added: "The fact that Mr Porchetti had failed to comply with Brush's policy led to the breakdown of the settlement negotiations and therefore his dismissal.
"He was the author of his own misfortune."
Porchetti won an unfair dismissal claim but will not receive any compensation because he was judged to have contributed to his sacking.
Brush must also pay him a two-week wage sum which went unpaid in July 2019.
Porchetti lost a separate claim of race discrimination.
