Border Force officer dismissed for misconduct while under a live final written warning: dismissal fair
A Border Force officer with three years' service was fairly dismissed after shouting at managers while under a live final written warning. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Border Force Officer at Stansted Airport from 2017 until dismissal in June 2020.
- She received a final written warning in January 2019 for allowing a passenger to leave without completing checks.
- The warning was extended in August 2019 after she failed to report a warning index hit within the required time.
- In December 2019, she shouted at senior managers who asked her to return to work after a break.
- She was dismissed in June 2020 for misconduct while under a live final written warning.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair and dismissed all discrimination claims.
Timeline
-
First incident: passenger allowed to leave without checks
The claimant failed to prevent a passenger from leaving the primary control point without a passport and did not immediately report it.
-
Final written warning imposed for first incident
Mr Fisk issued a two-year final written warning for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal reduces warning period
Mr Naeem backdated the warning to the incident date, reducing its expiry to November 2020.
-
Second incident: failure to report warning index hit
The claimant failed to report a customs alert within two hours, despite having time later in her shift.
-
Final written warning extended
Mr Ashworth extended the warning to 36 months (expiry November 2021) due to the second incident.
-
Appeal reduces extension to 6 months
Mr Wilson reduced the extension to 6 months, making both warnings expire concurrently in July 2021.
-
Third incident: shouting at managers
The claimant shouted at senior officers who asked her to return to work after a break during a busy shift.
-
Dismissal for misconduct
Mr Wilmer dismissed the claimant for misconduct while under a live final written warning.
-
Appeal against dismissal rejected
Mr Davis upheld the dismissal, noting the live warning and the seriousness of the third incident.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was fair, and whether the employer discriminated against the claimant on grounds of sex, disability, or part-time worker status in the disciplinary process and dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the dismissal was fair because the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct while under a live final written warning, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
The discrimination claims also failed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's sex, disability (depression and fibromyalgia), or part-time worker status influenced any of the disciplinary decisions. The employer had reasonable grounds for each warning and the dismissal, and the claimant's conduct was not linked to her disability.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A live final written warning significantly increases the risk of dismissal for any further misconduct, even if the new incident alone might not warrant dismissal.
- Employers can rely on a final written warning that has been reduced on appeal, as long as it remains live at the time of the further misconduct.
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, you must show that the protected characteristic (e.g., disability) was a material factor in the employer's decision, not just that you have the characteristic.
- Shouting at managers in a confrontational manner, especially when under a warning, is likely to be treated as gross misconduct in a disciplined environment like Border Force.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how a live final written warning can be decisive when an employee commits further misconduct. The claimant, a Border Force officer at Stansted Airport, had received a final written warning in January 2019 after allowing a passenger to leave without completing checks. That warning was later extended after she failed to report a customs alert. In December 2019, she shouted at senior managers who asked her to return to work after a break during a busy shift. The employer dismissed her in June 2020 for misconduct while under the live warning.
The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was fair. The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, had carried out a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the live warning. The claimant's appeals against the earlier warnings were also properly handled, and the reductions on appeal did not make the warnings invalid.
What the employer did right
The Home Office followed a structured disciplinary process at each stage: investigation, a decision-maker, and an appeal. Each warning was issued by a different manager, and appeals were heard by others. This helped demonstrate that decisions were not predetermined or discriminatory. The employer also had a clear policy that any further misconduct while under a final written warning could lead to dismissal.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant argued that her sex, disability (depression and fibromyalgia), and part-time worker status influenced the disciplinary actions. However, the tribunal found no evidence of discrimination. The managers were unaware of her disability at the time of the first two incidents, and the third incident — shouting at managers — was not linked to her disability. The claimant had not requested adjustments or explained that her behaviour was due to her condition. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was treated no differently from other officers in similar situations.
Key takeaway for employees
If you are under a live final written warning, any further misconduct — even relatively minor — can lead to dismissal. It is important to understand the terms of the warning and to seek support if your health or personal circumstances are affecting your behaviour. Employers are not expected to guess that misconduct is disability-related unless you tell them.
Similar cases
Senior hairdresser with long COVID wins constructive dismissal case over part-time return refusal
A senior hairdresser with 12 years' service who resigned after her employer refused her GP-recommended phased return of two days a week has been awarded £13,699 for constructive unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Delivery driver dismissed for speeding: a fair decision despite live warning
An online delivery driver with a live final written warning was fairly dismissed after speeding 30% over the limit. The tribunal upheld Sainsbury's decision, finding it fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.
Dismissed for refusing to attend meetings: conduct dismissal upheld
A clerical officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after repeatedly refusing to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.