Dismissed after 17 years without any disciplinary process: a conduct case that fell at the first hurdle
A business manager and PA with 17 years' service was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct without any investigation or hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded £33,813.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #no-written-contract
- #acas-code-breach
- #laptop-purchase
- #cash-payments
- #whistleblowing-claim-failed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for 17 years without a written contract or employment policies.
- She was summarily dismissed on 9 July 2020 for alleged gross misconduct including unauthorised laptop purchase and data deletion.
- The tribunal found the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct.
- The claimant's whistleblowing claims failed because her disclosures were not made in the public interest.
- The respondent failed to follow any disciplinary procedure or ACAS Code of Practice.
- The claimant was awarded £33,813.24 for unfair dismissal plus £835 for unlawful deduction of wages.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Business Manager, later also became PA to Third Respondent.
-
£400 monthly payment agreed
Third Respondent agreed to pay claimant an additional £400 per month in cash, later by cheque, in lieu of pension indexation and for out-of-hours work.
-
Australia trip and cashflow issues
Third Respondent's trip to Australia coincided with cashflow problems; claimant felt unsupported.
-
Laptop purchase authorised
Claimant purchased a laptop for £720 with Third Respondent's authority to work from home during pandemic.
-
Meeting with accountant and alleged protected disclosure
Claimant met with Mr Bradshaw of Azets and later relayed concerns to Third Respondent about tax and accounting issues.
-
Furlough agreed
Claimant signed furlough letter consenting to be placed on furlough leave.
-
Passwords requested
Second Respondent requested passwords for PC and SAGE; claimant provided them the next day.
-
Data deletion discovered
Second Respondent noticed claimant had moved personal files to recycling bin for deletion.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Third Respondent wrote to claimant requesting resignation by midnight 10 July, citing gross misconduct.
-
Claimant received dismissal letter and appealed
Claimant received letter and wrote appeal denying misconduct; respondents deny receiving appeal.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction; whistleblowing claims dismissed.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded basic award £12,912, compensatory award £20,901.24, total £33,813.24.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had reasonable grounds to dismiss for gross misconduct, and whether the claimant had made a protected disclosure (which would have given her extra protection).
The outcome
The tribunal decided the claimant was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed, and that the employer had made an unlawful deduction from her wages. Her whistleblowing claims failed because her disclosures were not made in the public interest.
The key reasons were:
- The employer did not have reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had committed gross misconduct.
- No disciplinary procedure was followed at all – no investigation, no hearing, no right of appeal.
- The employer breached the ACAS Code of Practice, increasing the compensatory award.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £12,912
- Compensatory award: £20,901.24
- Unlawful deduction from wages: £835
- Total: £33,813.24
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must carry out a reasonable investigation before dismissing for misconduct – even if they believe the employee is guilty.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process; failing to follow any disciplinary procedure makes a dismissal almost certain to be unfair.
- Whistleblowing claims require the employee to reasonably believe the disclosure is in the public interest – personal grievances do not qualify.
- If an employer ignores the ACAS Code of Practice, the tribunal can increase compensation by up to 25%.
This case shows what can happen when a small employer reacts to a perceived problem without pausing to follow basic employment law. The business manager and PA had worked for Lactodorum Contracts Limited for 17 years without a written contract or any formal policies. When the directors decided she had committed gross misconduct – by buying a laptop without authorisation and deleting data – they sent a letter demanding her resignation by midnight the next day. No investigation, no disciplinary hearing, no chance to respond.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the employer did not have reasonable grounds to believe the misconduct had occurred. The laptop purchase had been authorised, and the data deletion was of personal files. More fundamentally, the employer failed to follow any procedure at all. The ACAS Code of Practice sets out minimum standards for disciplinary processes – investigation, meeting, appeal – and the employer ignored every step. For a long-serving employee, that is a serious failing.
The claimant also brought whistleblowing claims, arguing she had been dismissed for raising concerns about tax and accounting issues. But the tribunal found that her disclosures were not made in the public interest – they were about her own pay and working conditions. That meant the extra protection for whistleblowers did not apply.
Why the result matters
The compensation of £33,813 reflects the claimant's 17 years of service and the employer's complete failure to follow any procedure. The tribunal increased the compensatory award because the employer breached the ACAS Code. For anyone considering a similar claim, this case is a reminder that a fair process is not optional – even for small businesses. And for employees, it shows that whistleblowing protection is not automatic: you must show you believed the disclosure was in the public interest, not just a personal grievance.
Similar cases
Delivery driver sacked with abusive language: takeaway ordered to pay £4,656
A delivery driver was unfairly dismissed after his manager told him 'I don't need you any more' and used abusive language. The Watford tribunal awarded £4,656 in compensation.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.
Machine Room Manager dismissed after blocking subordinate: conduct dismissal upheld
An Employment Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Machine Room Manager with 8 years' service who admitted physically blocking a subordinate during a workplace argument. No compensation was awarded.