Dismissed for helping on a farm while off sick: unfair dismissal after 36 years' service
A team leader with 36 years' service was unfairly dismissed after covert surveillance showed him helping at a farm while on sick leave. The tribunal found the employer's procedure was flawed and the decision unreasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 1 November 1983 until 14 October 2019 as a Team Leader.
- He was absent on sick leave from 5 November 2018 due to right shoulder pain from radiation-induced neuropathy.
- The respondent conducted covert surveillance and saw the claimant at a farm, leading to a disciplinary process.
- The original allegation of secondary employment changed to undertaking physical activity while off sick.
- The tribunal found the claimant was disabled due to depression and anxiety as well as his physical condition.
- The dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure and the decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an apprentice at Pilkington UK Ltd.
-
Became Team Leader
Claimant became Team Leader (Hot End), a supervisory role.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant began a period of sick leave due to right shoulder pain from radiation-induced neuropathy.
-
Mental health assessment
Claimant was assessed by Mind Matters; scores indicated severe depression and moderate to severe anxiety.
-
Surveillance day 1
Covert surveillance recorded the claimant at Cronton Farm, helping with deliveries and watering plants.
-
Surveillance day 2
Further surveillance at the farm showed similar low-level activity.
-
Investigation letter
Respondent invited claimant to an investigatory meeting regarding suspected secondary employment.
-
Investigation meeting
Meeting held; claimant explained farm visits were for social inclusion, encouraged by Mind Matters.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for alleged secondary employment.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed summarily for gross misconduct for undertaking physical activity while off sick.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed, noting the allegation had changed from secondary employment to physical activity.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal hearing manager Neil Syder dismissed the appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct (gross misconduct) after covert surveillance showed him undertaking physical activity while off sick, and whether the dismissal amounted to disability discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were:
- The employer's procedure was flawed: the allegation changed from secondary employment to physical activity without proper notice.
- The decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses, especially given the claimant's 36 years of service and his explanation that the farm visits were for social inclusion recommended by his mental health support.
- The claimant was also found to have been disabled due to depression and anxiety, and the dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability.
Compensation is to be determined at a remedy hearing, with a 20% reduction for contributory conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair procedure and give employees proper notice of the specific allegations they face, especially when the nature of the allegation changes during the process.
- Covert surveillance may be justified in some cases, but the findings must be considered fairly and in context, including any medical or mental health reasons for the employee's behaviour.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a higher standard of procedural fairness; dismissing a 36-year employee without adequate process is likely to be unreasonable.
- Mental health conditions can amount to a disability, and employers must consider whether conduct arising from such conditions is connected to the disability before dismissing.
This case shows how even a well-intentioned disciplinary process can go wrong when an employer fails to follow proper procedure and ignores the context of an employee's actions.
The human story
The claimant, a team leader with 36 years' service, was off sick with severe shoulder pain from radiation-induced neuropathy. He also suffered from depression and anxiety. On the advice of his mental health support, he began visiting a farm for social inclusion, helping with low-level tasks like watering plants. The employer placed him under covert surveillance and saw him at the farm. Initially, the allegation was secondary employment, but it later changed to undertaking physical activity while off sick. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the employer's procedure was flawed. The change in allegation meant the claimant did not have a proper opportunity to respond. Moreover, the decision to dismiss was unreasonable given his long service and the fact that the farm visits were part of his mental health recovery. The employer also failed to properly consider his disability—the tribunal found he was disabled due to depression and anxiety—and dismissed him for something arising from that disability.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers must not rush to judgment when an employee is off sick, especially after many years of service. Covert surveillance may be permissible, but the results must be weighed carefully against the employee's health needs and the employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments. The 20% reduction for contributory conduct reflects that the claimant's actions were not entirely blameless, but the core finding is that the dismissal was unfair and discriminatory.
Similar cases
Dismissed while on sick leave: employer ignored offer of imminent return
A tribunal found that EE Limited unfairly dismissed a broadband technical support worker with panic disorder after it refused to wait a week for her to return to work, and also discriminated against her because of her disability.
Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
Bid Manager with 12 years' service awarded £964k after disability discrimination and victimisation
A tribunal found that Mears Group plc unfairly dismissed a Bid Manager with spinal injuries and victimised her for raising concerns about reasonable adjustments. She was awarded £964,465.37.
27-year social worker dismissed after 9 months' sick leave: tribunal upholds council's decision
Birmingham City Council fairly dismissed a Senior Practitioner with 27 years' service after a 9-month sickness absence for bereavement stress. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.