30-year employee dismissed for gross misconduct without any disciplinary procedure: unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that Dunwood Specialties Limited unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee after failing to follow any disciplinary process, but reduced compensation by 80% because the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #data-breach
- #salary-disclosure
- #overordering
- #polkey-reduction
- #acas-code-uplift
- #summary-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 21 December 2022.
- The claimant ordered £233,357.42 worth of Emupol without authority, causing a £40,000 loss.
- The claimant accessed and disclosed confidential salary information to colleagues.
- The respondent failed to follow any disciplinary procedure or ACAS Code.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but 80% likely to have occurred anyway.
- The claimant was awarded a basic award of £19,290 and a compensatory award of £7,785.16 after Polkey reduction and ACAS uplift.
Timeline
-
Business Purchase Agreement
Dunwood Specialties Limited acquired Dunwood Polymers Services Limited; claimant's employment TUPE transferred.
-
Claimant emails sales data
Claimant sent an email attaching sales data from his personal intranet to Mr Cicognani, copying Mr Pope and Mr Didlick.
-
Intranet becomes public
Claimant's personal intranet became publicly accessible; claimant contacted IT consultant to take it offline.
-
Data breach letter
Claimant was asked to sign a letter acknowledging the data breach; he refused.
-
Access to HR database
Claimant was mistakenly given unrestricted access to RBH's HR database containing salary information.
-
Claimant discloses salaries
Claimant told Mr Kaufman, Mrs Turner, and Mr Didlick that he had access to salary information and disclosed specific salaries.
-
Claimant placed on gardening leave
Claimant was placed on gardening leave; no notice of termination given.
-
Recorded conversation
Claimant and Mr Didlick discussed termination and BPA variation in a recorded telephone call.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, citing Emupol order, intranet data breach, and salary disclosure.
-
Hearing begins
Employment tribunal hearing commenced at Leeds via CVP.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed when the employer summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct without any investigation or disciplinary hearing, and whether the dismissal was wrongful (breach of contract).
The outcome
The tribunal found that the employee was unfairly dismissed because Dunwood Specialties Limited failed to follow any disciplinary procedure or the ACAS Code of Practice. There was no investigation, no hearing, and no opportunity for the employee to respond to the allegations.
However, the tribunal applied an 80% 'Polkey' reduction, finding that even with a fair procedure the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway due to the seriousness of his conduct. The compensatory award was also increased by 25% because of the employer's unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £19,290
- Compensatory award (after Polkey reduction and ACAS uplift): £7,785.16
- Total: £27,075.16
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary procedure even when they believe misconduct is clear-cut; skipping all steps risks an unfair dismissal finding.
- Long-serving employees (here 30 years) are entitled to proper process; a tribunal will scrutinise whether the employer acted within the 'range of reasonable responses'.
- Even if an employee has committed serious misconduct, a tribunal may still find the dismissal unfair if the procedure is flawed, though compensation can be heavily reduced.
- Failing to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice can lead to a 25% uplift in compensation, adding significantly to the employer's costs.
What happened
A 30-year employee of Dunwood Specialties Limited was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after ordering over £233,000 worth of a product (Emupol) without authority, causing a £40,000 loss, and disclosing confidential salary information to colleagues. The employer relied on these allegations to dismiss him instantly, without any investigation, disciplinary hearing, or opportunity for the employee to respond.
Why it was unfair
The tribunal found that the employer's complete failure to follow any disciplinary procedure—no investigation, no hearing, no chance to explain—made the dismissal procedurally unfair. Even if the allegations were serious, the employer must still act reasonably. The tribunal noted that the employer's approach was outside the 'range of reasonable responses' open to a reasonable employer.
What could have been done differently
Dunwood Specialties could have conducted a proper investigation, given the employee a chance to respond, and then made a decision. The tribunal found that if a fair procedure had been followed, there was an 80% chance the employee would still have been dismissed given the gravity of his conduct. This 'Polkey' reduction meant the compensatory award was cut by 80%, from £31,140.67 to £6,228.13.
The result
The employee received a basic award of £19,290 and a compensatory award of £7,785.16 (after the 80% reduction and a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code). The total compensation was £27,075.16. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the employee's conduct justified summary dismissal under contract law.
Why this matters
This case shows that even when an employee has clearly committed serious misconduct, employers cannot bypass fair procedures. A failure to follow any process will almost certainly lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, though compensation may be reduced if the outcome would have been the same. For employees, it highlights that proper process matters—but also that serious misconduct can still significantly limit compensation.
Similar cases
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Team leader dismissed for defeating safety system wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a safety breach. The tribunal found the employer's process was inadequate and reduced compensation by 20% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Headteacher dismissed for sharing pupil data: unfair dismissal due to flawed investigation
A headteacher was unfairly dismissed after sharing sensitive pupil data with her husband, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process. No compensation was awarded due to contributory conduct.
NHS worker unfairly dismissed over alleged toilet filming after biased investigation
A community healthcare professional was unfairly dismissed by Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust after a biased investigation into an allegation he tried to film a colleague in the ladies' toilets. The tribunal awarded £21,469.59.