Dismissed for gross misconduct after 16-month delay: a flawed process that cost Network Rail
A lubrication team leader with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a 16-month investigation into a near-miss incident. The tribunal found the delay and failure to consider alternatives made the dismissal unreasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-delay
- #fair-culture-process
- #gross-misconduct
- #line-blockage
- #near-miss
- #contributory-conduct
- #polkey-deduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a lubrication team leader from 1 November 2004.
- On 22 October 2019, a team member nearly crossed an open line and was nearly hit by a train.
- The claimant was the Controller of Site Safety (COSS) responsible for line blockages.
- The investigation and disciplinary process took almost 16 months, with no adequate explanation for the delay.
- The respondent failed to refer the matter back to the Fair Culture process after the original allegation was not upheld.
- The dismissing and appeal officers did not properly consider alternative sanctions to dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a lubrication team leader.
-
Safety incident
A team member nearly crossed an open line and was nearly hit by a train. The claimant was COSS.
-
Statements taken
All team members and the line manager provided handwritten statements about the incident.
-
Level 2 investigation interview
Claimant interviewed as part of the Level 2 investigation, almost 4 months after the incident.
-
Level 2 investigation report completed
Report completed, finding unsafe act and referring to Fair Culture panel.
-
Disciplinary investigation interview
Claimant interviewed by Mr Watters, almost 16 months after the incident.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after disciplinary hearing.
-
Tribunal hearing (liability)
Employment Tribunal heard the unfair dismissal claim over three days.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found dismissal unfair, with Polkey reduction of 30% and contributory fault of 25%.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded total compensation of £15,382.74.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct, focusing on the adequacy of the investigation, the impact of the delay, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to the unreasonable delay (16 months) and the failure to properly consider alternatives to dismissal. The claimant contributed 25% to his dismissal, and there was a 30% chance he would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £4,161.60
- Compensatory award: £11,221.14
- Total: £15,382.74
Lessons & takeaways
- Long delays in disciplinary processes without good reason can make a dismissal unfair, even if the employee was at fault.
- Employers should always consider alternatives to dismissal, especially for long-serving employees with clean records.
- Following internal procedures (like Fair Culture processes) is crucial; failing to do so undermines the fairness of a dismissal.
- A thorough investigation must be completed promptly; delays can prejudice the employee and render the process unreasonable.
When a safety incident leads to a flawed dismissal
A lubrication team leader with 17 years of service was dismissed for gross misconduct after a near-miss incident where a team member nearly crossed an open line and was almost hit by a train. The claimant, as Controller of Site Safety, was responsible for line blockages. However, the investigation and disciplinary process took almost 16 months—from October 2019 to August 2021—with no adequate explanation for the delay.
What went wrong in the process
The tribunal found several failings. The employer did not refer the matter back to its Fair Culture process after the original allegation was not upheld, and the dismissing and appeal officers did not properly consider alternative sanctions to dismissal. The delay itself was a key factor: the tribunal noted that a 16-month delay with no good reason can render a dismissal unfair, even if the employee was not prejudiced. The employer also failed to follow its own procedures, which undermined the reasonableness of the decision.
Why this case matters
This case highlights the importance of timely and fair disciplinary processes. Even in safety-critical industries, employers must balance the need for swift action with the employee's right to a reasonable investigation. The tribunal applied a 30% Polkey reduction (chance of dismissal anyway) and a 25% contributory fault reduction, reflecting the claimant's own role in the incident. The total compensation of £15,382.74 reflects the unfairness of the process, not the incident itself.
Similar cases
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
Care worker dismissed for mistreating dementia resident: unfair process but no compensation
A care home worker was unfairly dismissed after procedural flaws, but the tribunal found her guilty of the alleged misconduct and reduced compensation to zero.
HGV driver dismissed for fight after being spat on: unfair dismissal but compensation slashed
An HGV driver with six years' service was unfairly dismissed by DHL after a physical altercation with a colleague, but his compensation was reduced by 85% for the likelihood he would have been dismissed anyway and by 50% for his own conduct.