A teacher was sacked after he went on holiday after his time off request was rejected and his boarding passes were found on a school printer, a tribunal heard.
Nikoloz Papashvili, a teaching supervisor at an Ealing school for children with special needs, claimed he had Covid symptoms and could not go to work.
He had asked for permission to miss the last week of term in July 2020 as he needed to visit family in Georgia.
But the headteacher rejected his request and later that day discovered he went to the pub with colleagues for 'leaving drinks' before setting off for a pre-booked 'European tour' with his girlfriend the next day, the tribunal was told, reported MyLondon.
When the last week of term came around on Monday, July 20, 2020, Mr Papashvili said he was unable to attend as he was displaying symptoms of Covid-19 and was self-isolating.
But the headteacher's suspicions were confirmed when following the return from summer holidays, the copy of two boarding passes turned up.
These showed Mr Papashvili and another woman had checked in for a flight from Luton to Split in Croatia for July 16.
Mr Papashvili claimed these boarding passes appeared because he had been trying to obtain a refund, despite showing no further evidence of this.
After his dismissal, at a disciplinary meeting, it was found that he fabricated a bank statement to make it look like he was in the UK rather than on holiday.
Employment Judge G Tobin wrote in a tribunal held on April 11: "This document was manufactured with the intent to deceive. The claimant is not merely unreliable, we make the determination that he is dishonest.
"In his witness statement, he said the requirement for him to attend work for the last week of term was unfair and outside his contractual obligation. He said he needed notice. which was a silly argument as the headteacher did not need to give him notice to do his job in school.
"He lied to the headteacher about going to Georgia. We determine that he was never going to attend work for that last week. [Mr Papashvili] had a pre-booked holiday (as evidenced by his boarding card) to Croatia.
"We determine he lied about his Covid sickness absence as this was never corroborated with any test results. We now view him as a dishonest person both because of the lies he told at the time and, more shockingly, in respect of the deliberate creation of misleading evidence "
But despite the employment judge agreeing that Mr Papashvili was sacked for legitimate reasons, the disciplinary process carried out by the school was branded 'substantially flawed'.
The judge said the school 'built a case' against Mr Papashvili and their investigation was 'hopelessly biased' and 'profoundly unfair'.
This included wrongdoing such as insisting that Mr Papashvili attended various disciplinary meetings despite being signed off sick by his GP in the months after the start of term. The headteacher then threatened to suspend his wages.
Mr Papashvili raised a grievance about the headteacher about sexual harassment, where he alleges she made remarks about his body while wearing a Speedo swimsuit. The employment judge determined that this complaint was not given a fair investigation, and he was called an 'idiot' in an email to HR by a colleague.
The judge wrote: "We were concerned about the headteacher's involvement in the disciplinary procedure. She had her fingerprints all over this process.
"The headteacher who directed the investigation had established the facts to her liking. The investigation report is extraordinary. The report was short, inaccurate and hopelessly biased. The language is condemnatory of the claimant. The deputy headteacher investigation was not undertaken with an open mind.
"She built a case against the claimant and discounted anything that might not suit the claimant’s dismissal. Such a bias investigation was a breach of the ACAS Code of Practice"
The employment judge concluded that the school did unfairly dismiss the teaching supervisor, however because of his dishonest conduct, he was partly to blame. This means that while Mr Papashvili was due compensation for his unfair dismissal, it would be substantially reduced.
It was concluded: "I do not believe that he remained in the UK in July 2020. The claimant was guilty of blameworthy conduct.
"His absence was serious but not necessarily overwhelming. It is his lies that have disturbed us most. We are resolved to make a substantial deduction on the basis of his blameworthy conduct.
"The claimant's misconduct clearly contributed to his dismissal. We were resolved to reduce both the claimant’s basic award and compensatory award by 70%."
