Dismissed for threatening a supervisor: unfair when CCTV was deleted before appeal
A trailer loader was unfairly dismissed after threatening to knock out his supervisor, but the tribunal found the process flawed because the employer failed to preserve CCTV evidence and delayed the appeal until the footage was lost. He was awarded £2,743 after a 75% reduction for his own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #aggressive-behaviour
- #cctv-not-shared
- #delay-in-appeal
- #contributory-conduct
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a trailer loader from 3 January 2018 until 16 December 2022.
- On 8 December 2022, the claimant's supervisor Mr Pugh shouted at the claimant and colleagues.
- On 9 December 2022, the claimant threatened to knock out Mr Pugh.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct without showing him CCTV evidence.
- The appeal hearing was delayed until 30 January 2023, by which time CCTV footage was deleted.
- The depot closed on 7 September 2023 but the tribunal found the claimant would have remained employed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a trailer loader for Fleet Express and Logistics Ltd.
-
First incident
Supervisor Mr Pugh shouted at the claimant and colleagues in the yard after clocking out.
-
Second incident
Claimant threatened to knock out Mr Pugh; Mr Pugh apologised for the previous day.
-
Disciplinary hearing invited
Claimant received a letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing for aggressive behaviour.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Held by Mr Shaw; claimant not shown CCTV footage; no notes taken.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Ms Nunn; CCTV footage had been deleted.
-
Depot closure
The depot closed; some staff redeployed.
-
Tribunal hearing
Substantive hearing commenced.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and awarded £2743.19 after 75% contributory deduction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct (threatening a supervisor) and whether the claimant's own aggressive behaviour contributed to the dismissal, reducing any compensation.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer's disciplinary process was flawed: the claimant was not shown CCTV footage that might have supported his version of events, and the appeal was delayed by six weeks, by which time the footage had been automatically deleted. This meant the employer did not have reasonable grounds for dismissal and the process was procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal also found that the claimant did threaten to 'knock out' his supervisor, which was a significant act of misconduct. The compensation was reduced by 75% for contributory fault.
- Basic award: £1,424.76
- Compensatory award: £9,548.00
- Contributory reduction: 75%
- Total award: £2,743.19
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should preserve all relevant evidence, especially CCTV, and make it available to the employee during the disciplinary process.
- Appeal hearings should be held promptly; delays that result in lost evidence can make a dismissal procedurally unfair.
- Even if an employee has committed misconduct, a flawed process can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, though compensation may be reduced for contributory fault.
- Employees who threaten violence risk having their compensation significantly reduced, even if the dismissal is ultimately found unfair.
A flawed process that cost the employer
This case shows how a failure to follow proper procedure can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one. The claimant, a trailer loader with four years' service and a clean record, was dismissed for threatening to knock out his supervisor. The employer had CCTV footage of the first incident, but did not show it to the claimant during the disciplinary hearing. When the claimant appealed, the employer took six weeks to arrange the hearing, by which time the footage had been automatically deleted. The tribunal found that this deprived the claimant of a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against him.
The employer could have avoided this outcome by preserving the CCTV footage and showing it to the claimant at the disciplinary stage, or by holding the appeal hearing sooner. Instead, the delay meant the key evidence was lost, and the tribunal concluded that the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
The impact of the claimant's own conduct
Although the dismissal was unfair, the tribunal found that the claimant did threaten violence, which was a serious act of misconduct. The compensation was reduced by 75% to reflect the claimant's contribution to his own dismissal. This means the claimant received only a fraction of the full award — a reminder that even when an employer gets the process wrong, an employee's own behaviour can significantly affect the final payout.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case highlights the importance of preserving evidence and the potential consequences of aggressive behaviour. For employers, it is a warning that procedural shortcuts — like failing to disclose relevant evidence or delaying an appeal — can make a dismissal unfair, even if the underlying misconduct is serious. The key takeaway is that a fair process is not just a formality; it can be the difference between a successful defence and a finding of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Demoted without consultation: constructive dismissal after 20 years' service
A long-serving installations manager was constructively dismissed after being demoted twice without consultation. The tribunal awarded £24,331.