26 years' service not enough to save job after sharing confidential files with competitor
A development project co-ordinator with 26 years' service was fairly dismissed for sending 11 confidential documents to his personal email and forwarding them to a former colleague at a competitor. The Sheffield tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #confidential-information
- #gross-misconduct
- #disciplinary-process
- #consistency-of-treatment
- #condonation
Key facts
- The claimant sent 11 confidential SYHA documents to his personal email account in July 2019.
- He forwarded at least some of those documents to Karl Drabble, a former colleague now working for a competitor.
- The claimant initially denied sharing information but later admitted sending documents to Mr Drabble.
- The respondent investigated and found that four other former employees had also shared confidential information, but they had left the organisation.
- The claimant's line manager, Karl Drabble, had condoned sharing non-confidential templates but not confidential information.
- The tribunal found the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant committed gross misconduct and dismissed him fairly.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Mr D Foster began working for South Yorkshire Housing Association.
-
Fact-find meeting
Natalie Newman met the claimant to discuss concerns about sharing confidential information. The claimant denied sending documents outside SYHA.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant admitted sending some documents to his personal email and to Karl Drabble, but disputed their confidentiality.
-
Claimant commenced sickness absence
The claimant went on sick leave due to stress, certified by his GP.
-
Investigation report completed
Natalie Newman recommended proceeding to a disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Juliann Hall chaired the hearing; the claimant was represented by a trade union representative. The hearing was adjourned for further investigation into the claimant's mitigation.
-
Dismissal decision
Juliann Hall concluded the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him with immediate effect.
-
Appeal hearing
Charlotte Murray heard the claimant's appeal against dismissal and grievance outcome.
-
Appeal outcome
Charlotte Murray rejected the claimant's appeals, upholding the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's belief in the claimant's gross misconduct was genuine and based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was a reasonable response.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, ruling that South Yorkshire Housing Association acted fairly.
Key reasons:
- The claimant admitted sending 11 confidential documents to his personal email and forwarding some to a former colleague at a competitor.
- The employer conducted a reasonable investigation, including a fact-find meeting, investigation meeting, and disciplinary hearing.
- The decision-maker genuinely believed the claimant committed gross misconduct, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the employer follows a proper process.
- Sending confidential documents to personal email or to competitors is a serious breach of trust that can justify summary dismissal.
- An employer's investigation does not need to be perfect; it must be reasonable in the circumstances.
- Inconsistency in treatment of other employees is not necessarily unfair if their circumstances differ, e.g., they had already left the organisation.
A case of trust betrayed
A development project co-ordinator with 26 years of service lost his job after sending 11 confidential documents to his personal email and forwarding some to a former colleague now working for a competitor. The Sheffield Employment Tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding that South Yorkshire Housing Association had acted reasonably.
The case highlights that length of service does not protect an employee who breaches confidentiality, especially when the breach involves sharing information with a competitor. The claimant initially denied the conduct but later admitted it, undermining his credibility.
What the employer did right
South Yorkshire Housing Association followed a structured process: a fact-find meeting, an investigation meeting, a disciplinary hearing (adjourned for further investigation), and an appeal. The decision-maker concluded that the claimant's actions amounted to gross misconduct, and the tribunal agreed that this was a reasonable conclusion.
The claimant argued that other employees had also shared confidential information but were not dismissed. However, the tribunal noted that those employees had already left the organisation, so there was no inconsistency in treatment.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers can dismiss for gross misconduct if they have a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. Employees should be aware that sending confidential information to personal accounts or third parties, especially competitors, is a serious breach of trust that can justify dismissal regardless of long service.
Similar cases
Medical secretary dismissed for racist comments: NHS trust's decision upheld
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a medical secretary who made racist comments about a colleague's appointment, finding the NHS trust acted reasonably.
Trader dismissed for alleged leak after raising mismarking concerns: unfair dismissal upheld
A trader with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed by EDF Trading Limited after a flawed investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but rejected his whistleblowing claim.
Senior construction manager dismissed for undisclosed friendships and laptop misuse
A senior project manager was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to disclose personal relationships with contractors and allowing a friend to use his work laptop. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Deputy MD dismissed during notice period: unfair process despite gross misconduct
A deputy managing director with 15 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed misconduct process. The tribunal found the decision-maker had prejudged the outcome, but applied a 50% Polkey reduction.