Dismissed for electrical coding error: procedural flaw in appeal panel leads to unfair dismissal finding
A manager with 19 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over an electrical safety classification. The tribunal found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair because the appeal was heard by one manager instead of the required two-person panel.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-negligence
- #electrical-safety
- #classification-code
- #appeal-panel
- #polkey-reduction
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after signing off an F1 (further investigation) coding on a domestic electrical installation that the respondent believed should have been C1 (danger present).
- The claimant had 19 years of service and a clean disciplinary record apart from a previous statement of expectations.
- The respondent's disciplinary policy required a two-person appeal panel for dismissals, but the appeal was heard by a single manager.
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair due to the appeal panel irregularity.
- The tribunal applied a 50% Polkey reduction, reflecting the chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair procedure.
- The parties agreed on a net settlement of £14,823.03, avoiding a remedy hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an Apprentice Electrician.
-
Electrical inspection by Mr Robson
Electrician Joe Robson inspected a domestic property and assigned an F1 coding to a socket installation, noting exposed cables.
-
Claimant signed off DEICR
Claimant reviewed and signed off Mr Robson's DEICR, agreeing with the F1 classification.
-
Remedial works carried out
Electrician Joe King performed remedial works, removing DIY wiring and fitting a socket.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was formally suspended pending investigation into potential gross misconduct.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting and maintained the F1 coding was correct.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal submitted
Claimant appealed the dismissal by email.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by a single manager, Mrs Thompson, in the claimant's absence.
-
Appeal outcome
Mrs Thompson upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct after he signed off an electrical safety coding that the employer believed should have been a higher risk category. It also considered whether the appeal process was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was substantively fair: the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. However, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the appeal was heard by a single manager, contrary to the respondent's disciplinary policy which required a two-person panel.
Compensation was agreed at £14,823.03, reflecting a 50% Polkey reduction for the chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair procedure.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow their own disciplinary procedures precisely, including appeal panel composition, or risk a finding of procedural unfairness.
- A long-serving employee with a clean record may still be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the employer's belief is reasonable and based on a proper investigation.
- Even if a dismissal is substantively fair, a procedural error can still lead to a successful unfair dismissal claim, though compensation may be reduced for the chance of dismissal anyway.
When a procedural error costs a fair dismissal
This case shows how a seemingly small procedural mistake can turn a fair dismissal into an unfair one. The claimant, an Electrical Repairs and Maintenance Manager with 19 years' service, was dismissed after signing off an F1 (further investigation) coding on a domestic electrical installation. His employer, Gentoo Group Limited, believed the coding should have been C1 (danger present), and treated the error as gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the employer's decision to dismiss was substantively reasonable. The employer had carried out a proper investigation and genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct. However, the appeal process fell short: the respondent's disciplinary policy required a two-person appeal panel, but the appeal was heard by a single manager. This procedural flaw made the dismissal unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
Gentoo Group could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding simply by ensuring the appeal panel had two members as per its own policy. The tribunal noted that the appeal was otherwise fair, but the panel composition was a clear breach of procedure. Employers should regularly audit their disciplinary processes to ensure compliance with their own rules.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case illustrates that even a strong case of misconduct can be undermined by procedural errors. The 50% Polkey reduction – reflecting the chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair procedure – meant the compensation was significantly reduced. But the claimant still received a payout because the employer failed to follow its own rules. For employers, the lesson is clear: procedural fairness is not optional, and even minor deviations can be costly.
Similar cases
Yard controller with 30 years' service unfairly dismissed after radio failure caused collision
A yard controller with 30 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a 16-second delay in stopping a train due to a radio failure. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate and the procedure fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Unfair dismissal win but zero compensation: procedural flaws didn't save manager
An operations manager with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into financial irregularities, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.
Global Head of Marketing dismissed for redundancy after salary stopped: £89,013 awarded
A tribunal found that a medical technology company unfairly dismissed its Global Head of Marketing by making him redundant without consultation, and awarded him £89,013 including £74,800 in unpaid salary.