22-year worker dismissed for unauthorised sales: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A security and maintenance worker with 22 years' service was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because he would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to his own dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #procedural-unfairness
- #unauthorised-sale-of-property
- #listed-building
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the first respondent from February 1998 as a security and maintenance worker at Seighford Hall.
- The claimant was dismissed without notice on 3 February 2021 for gross misconduct relating to the unauthorised sale of a tractor, fireplaces, and an over mantle.
- The disciplinary process was procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to make sufficient efforts to contact the claimant, who was on sick leave and had moved accommodation.
- The tribunal found that even if a fair process had been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed in any event (100% Polkey deduction).
- The claimant's basic award was reduced to nil due to contributory conduct.
- The claimant succeeded in claims for unlawful deduction from wages (£2,511.27) and holiday pay (£1,554.55).
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the first respondent as a security and maintenance worker at Seighford Hall.
-
Share purchase by second respondent
The second respondent purchased the shares in the first respondent.
-
Site inspection by Mr Lever
Mr Lever inspected the Hall and the claimant reported a break-in; Mr Lever became suspicious about missing items.
-
Final written warning issued
The claimant received a final written warning for signing a document without authorisation. He did not appeal.
-
Claimant went on sick leave
The claimant was signed off work by his GP and remained on sick leave until dismissal.
-
Invitation to investigation meeting
Mr Butler invited the claimant to an investigation meeting regarding alleged unauthorised sales of property. The letter was left in a post box.
-
Disciplinary hearing in absence
The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence; he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Effective date of termination
The tribunal found the claimant became aware of his dismissal on this date when he contacted ACAS.
-
ET1 presented
The claimant filed claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard evidence from witnesses for the second respondent and the claimant.
-
Final hearing (day 2)
Submissions were heard and the tribunal reserved its decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the worker was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct relating to the unauthorised sale of property, and whether he was entitled to unpaid wages and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but awarded no compensation.
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer did not make reasonable efforts to contact the worker, who was on sick leave and had moved accommodation.
- However, the tribunal found that even with a fair process, the worker would have been dismissed (100% Polkey reduction) and his own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal (100% contributory fault), so the basic and compensatory awards were reduced to nil.
- The worker succeeded in claims for unlawful deduction from wages (£2,511.27) and holiday pay (£1,554.55), totalling £4,065.82.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must make genuine efforts to contact employees who are on sick leave before proceeding with disciplinary hearings in their absence.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation can be wiped out if the employee would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to their own dismissal.
- Long-serving employees are not automatically entitled to compensation if their conduct is serious enough to justify dismissal.
- Claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay can succeed even when an unfair dismissal claim results in no compensation.
A long-serving worker dismissed while on sick leave
This case shows how a procedurally flawed dismissal can still leave an employee with no compensation if the underlying misconduct is serious enough. The worker had been employed for 22 years as a security and maintenance worker at a listed building. After a change of ownership, he was accused of selling a tractor, fireplaces, and an over mantle without authorisation. While on sick leave, he received an invitation to an investigation meeting left in a post box, and the disciplinary hearing went ahead in his absence.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the employer failed to make sufficient efforts to contact the worker, who had moved accommodation while on sick leave. This made the dismissal procedurally unfair. A fair process would have required more proactive steps to ensure the worker knew about the hearing and had a chance to respond. However, the tribunal also found that the worker's conduct – the unauthorised sales – was so serious that he would have been dismissed even with a fair process, and his own actions contributed entirely to his dismissal.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that procedural unfairness alone does not guarantee compensation. The tribunal can apply a Polkey reduction (what would have happened in a fair process) and a contributory conduct reduction, potentially reducing awards to zero. For employers, it highlights the importance of making reasonable efforts to contact employees on sick leave – a failure to do so can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, even if the outcome would have been the same. The worker did receive over £4,000 for unpaid wages and holiday pay, showing that these claims can succeed independently of the unfair dismissal outcome.
Similar cases
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.
Analyst dismissed for comments during cultural awareness training: procedural flaws led to unfair dismissal
A Grade 5 analyst at the National Crime Agency was unfairly dismissed after making allegedly racist comments during a training event. The tribunal found the process was flawed by an initial promise of informal resolution and a 16-month delay, but reduced compensation due to her own conduct.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
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.