Long-serving wellbeing worker dismissed for continuing meals project after final warning
A wellbeing worker with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after he continued a free meals project with his son, despite a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent for 21 years as a Wellbeing Worker.
- The claimant launched a free meals delivery project with his son, which the respondent considered a conflict of interest.
- The claimant received a final written warning in August 2021 and was told to desist from the project.
- The respondent believed the claimant continued involvement based on social media posts and a delivery on 7 August 2021.
- The claimant did not attend the disciplinary or appeal hearings but made written submissions.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent in June 2001.
-
MBE awarded
The claimant was awarded an MBE for community activities during the pandemic.
-
Meeting about article
The claimant met with a director to discuss a newspaper article about his community work.
-
Conflict of interest form signed
The claimant signed a conflict of interest disclosure form.
-
Social media post
The claimant's son posted about launching 'Manchester Meals for the Elderly' with the claimant.
-
First disciplinary hearing
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing regarding the conflict of interest.
-
Final written warning issued
The claimant received a final written warning and was told to desist from the project.
-
Meal delivery and tweets
The claimant delivered meals and his son tweeted about it; the respondent believed the claimant ignored the warning.
-
Final tweet
The claimant's son tweeted a picture of the claimant with meals, stating the project was completed.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for misconduct, with 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had a fair reason for dismissal (conduct) and whether it acted reasonably in treating the alleged misconduct as sufficient for dismissal, considering the employer's belief, investigation, and procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had continued the meals project despite a final written warning, and this belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if they ignore a clear management instruction after a final warning.
- Employers can rely on social media posts as evidence of misconduct, provided they conduct a reasonable investigation.
- Employees who fail to attend disciplinary hearings risk losing the chance to put their side of the story, but this does not necessarily make a dismissal unfair.
- A final written warning is a serious step; continuing the prohibited activity can justify dismissal even for a long-serving employee.
This case shows how a long-serving employee can still be fairly dismissed for misconduct if they ignore a clear instruction. The claimant had worked for The African Caribbean Care Group for 21 years and was awarded an MBE for his community work. However, when he launched a free meals delivery project with his son, the employer saw a conflict of interest. After a disciplinary process, he received a final written warning and was told to stop.
Despite the warning, the employer believed the claimant continued the project based on social media posts and a meal delivery on 7 August 2021. The claimant did not attend the disciplinary or appeal hearings, though he made written submissions. The tribunal found that the employer's investigation was reasonable and that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer did right
The employer had a clear policy on conflicts of interest, which the claimant had signed. It issued a final warning and gave a specific instruction to desist. When evidence of continued involvement emerged, it carried out a further investigation and held a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had breached the instruction.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant could have attended the hearings to explain his actions, particularly that the delivery on 7 August was for his son's project and not his own. However, his absence meant the employer relied on the available evidence. The tribunal accepted that the employer's belief was reasonable.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for misconduct even after a long service, provided they follow a fair process and have reasonable grounds. It also highlights that social media posts can be used as evidence, and that employees should engage with disciplinary proceedings to avoid adverse inferences.
Similar cases
25-year postal worker dismissed over Facebook comment: a fair call by Royal Mail
A postal worker with 25 years' service was fairly dismissed after a Facebook post implying managers bully and harass employees. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.