Chief Revenue Officer dismissed for bypassing safety system: a conduct case with a partial win
A director and 50% shareholder was wrongfully and unfairly dismissed after temporarily bypassing a safety system during commissioning. The tribunal awarded £15,028 but reduced compensation because his employment would have ended fairly within six months.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #bypassing-safety-system
- #actuator-valve
- #commissioning-work
- #polkey-reduction
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #national-minimum-wage
Key facts
- The claimant was a director and 50% shareholder of the respondent company.
- On 31 January 2020, the claimant commissioned a cryotherapy chamber at a client's premises, including wiring an actuator valve.
- The claimant bypassed the actuator safety system temporarily to test the system, as suggested by the respondent's engineer.
- A subsequent leak on 17 February 2020 led to an investigation and the claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because his actions did not amount to gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the respondent's investigation was insufficient regarding the third allegation.
Timeline
-
Delivery of chamber to Glasgow
The claimant supervised the delivery of the cryotherapy chamber to Cryolabs Glasgow.
-
Pipework installation by TCL
Thames Cryogenics Limited installed pipes and valves for liquid nitrogen supply.
-
Claimant commissioned chamber
The claimant wired the actuator valve, bypassed the safety system temporarily, and tested the chamber. Training was provided to Cryolabs staff.
-
Leak discovered
BOC reported a gas discharge at the Glasgow site. The claimant sent a message with a photo showing the actuator lever in bypass position.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into gross misconduct allegations.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant attended an investigation meeting with Mr Saunders.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Mrs Saunders held the first part of the disciplinary hearing.
-
Second disciplinary hearing
The reconvened disciplinary hearing took place.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Saunders concluded the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him summarily.
-
Appeal hearing (first day)
Mr Frew conducted the first day of the appeal hearing.
-
Appeal hearing (second day)
The reconvened appeal hearing took place.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Frew upheld the dismissal, finding gross misconduct on the first allegation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's temporary bypass of a safety system during commissioning work constituted gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and whether the employer's investigation and decision to dismiss for conduct were fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because his actions did not amount to gross misconduct. He was entitled to three months' notice pay.
The dismissal was also unfair because the respondent's investigation into the third allegation (bypassing the safety system) was insufficient. However, the tribunal found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within six months anyway, so compensation was reduced accordingly.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £3,228
- Compensatory award: £1,300
- Total: £15,028 (including notice pay and other sums)
Lessons & takeaways
- Even a director and shareholder can be dismissed, but summary dismissal for gross misconduct requires clear evidence of a fundamental breach of contract.
- Employers must conduct a thorough investigation into each allegation; an insufficient investigation can render a dismissal unfair even if the employee was at fault.
- If a tribunal finds that dismissal would have occurred fairly within a certain period, compensation can be significantly reduced (Polkey reduction).
- Temporary safety bypasses during commissioning may not be gross misconduct if done on advice and without intent to cause harm.
When a safety bypass leads to dismissal
This case involved a Chief Revenue Officer and 50% shareholder who was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after temporarily bypassing a safety system on a cryotherapy chamber. The claimant had wired an actuator valve and bypassed the safety system to test the equipment, following a suggestion from the respondent's engineer. A leak later occurred, triggering an investigation that led to his dismissal.
The tribunal found that the claimant's actions did not amount to gross misconduct. He had acted on advice and without malicious intent. The dismissal was therefore wrongful, entitling him to notice pay. However, the tribunal also found that the dismissal was unfair only because the investigation into one of the allegations was insufficient. The respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, but the process fell short.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by conducting a more thorough investigation into the bypass allegation. The tribunal noted that the investigation was insufficient regarding that specific point. A more balanced inquiry, considering the claimant's explanation and the engineer's advice, might have led to a different outcome.
Why this matters
This case highlights that even senior employees with significant ownership stakes can be dismissed, but summary dismissal for gross misconduct requires clear evidence of a fundamental breach. Employers must ensure investigations are thorough and fair, especially when the employee's actions were arguably reasonable in the circumstances. The Polkey reduction also shows that compensation can be limited if the tribunal believes dismissal was inevitable within a reasonable period.
Similar cases
Whistleblower dismissed in flawed redundancy process: ACAS uplift adds 25% to compensation
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure about health and safety. The tribunal awarded over £50,000, including a 25% uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Conduct.
Disability discrimination and unpaid wages: a case of multiple breaches
A former employee with a disability was directly discriminated against when she was dismissed, and the tribunal also found the employer failed to pay the national minimum wage and made unauthorised deductions. Total compensation of £5,537.38 was awarded.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.