Crematorium technician dismissed for leaving pet remains in cremator: conduct dismissal upheld
A crematorium technician with two years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to clean pet remains from a cremator, falsifying timesheets, and creating a fire hazard. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #pet-cremation
- #de-ashing-failure
- #health-and-safety
- #falsified-timesheets
- #acas-code-compliance
- #failure-to-appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Crematorium Technician from 28 October 2019 until dismissal on 4 March 2022.
- On 22 December 2021, remains from a previous pet cremation were found pushed to the back of the pet cremator, and the claimant had been the last operator.
- The investigation found the claimant failed to complete cleaning logs, left a locking screw off the cremulator, and did not dispose of a spent factivate drum, creating a fire hazard.
- The claimant admitted to falsifying timesheets and poor timekeeping.
- The disciplinary hearing was conducted by Lisa Logan, who decided to dismiss with notice, and the claimant was informed of his right to appeal but did not exercise it.
- The claimant did not request a written statement of reasons for dismissal, so the section 92 claim failed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Crematorium Technician with North East Lincolnshire Council.
-
Qualification received
Claimant received qualification from the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management after supervised cremations.
-
Incident discovered
Manager found pet cremator contained remains from a previous cremation, pushed to the back; claimant was the last operator.
-
Suspension letter
Claimant was suspended pending investigation for failure to de-ash, breach of health and safety, and failure to complete logs.
-
First investigatory meeting
Claimant attended investigatory interview; he says he informed the manager of his address change.
-
Second investigatory meeting
Claimant attended further investigatory meeting to provide additional detail.
-
Investigation report completed
Investigation report recommended disciplinary action on six allegations.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended disciplinary hearing chaired by Lisa Logan; she decided to dismiss with notice and informed claimant of appeal right.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Dismissal letter setting out reasons was prepared and sent to claimant's former address; claimant says he did not receive it.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended with one month's notice; he did not appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing for gross misconduct, and whether the employer breached its duty to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that North East Lincolnshire Council had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was a proportionate sanction. The claimant did not appeal, which undermined his case. The section 92 claim failed because the claimant never requested a written statement of reasons.
- Unfair dismissal claim: dismissed.
- Section 92 claim: dismissed.
- No compensation awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always exercise your right to appeal a dismissal – failure to do so can significantly weaken an unfair dismissal claim.
- Employers are entitled to treat health and safety breaches seriously, even in a first disciplinary offence, if the risk is significant.
- If you want a written statement of reasons for dismissal, you must request it in writing – the employer is not obliged to provide one automatically.
- Admitting to dishonesty (such as falsifying timesheets) makes it very hard to argue that dismissal was an unreasonable response.
This case shows how a combination of serious misconduct and a failure to engage with internal processes can leave an employee with little protection from dismissal. The claimant, a crematorium technician, was dismissed after pet remains were found left in a cremator, cleaning logs were not completed, and a spent factivate drum created a fire hazard. He also admitted to falsifying his timesheets.
What the employer did right
North East Lincolnshire Council carried out a thorough investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and gave the claimant a clear right of appeal. The decision-maker, Lisa Logan, considered the seriousness of the health and safety risks and the admitted dishonesty. The tribunal noted that the employer's process was fair and that the sanction of dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for an employee with only two years' service.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant did not appeal the dismissal, even though he was told he could. He also did not request a written statement of reasons. These omissions made it much harder for him to argue that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The tribunal found that the employer had sent the dismissal letter to his old address, but the claimant had not updated his address with HR – only with his line manager – and the letter was correctly addressed according to the employer's records.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that honesty and safety compliance are fundamental expectations. For employers, it confirms that a fair process – including investigation, hearing, and appeal opportunity – will protect a dismissal decision even when the employee disputes the facts. The case also highlights that failing to appeal can be fatal to an unfair dismissal claim, as tribunals will assume the employee had no interest in challenging the decision internally.
Similar cases
Science director dismissed over cannabis smell in company car: dismissal fair
A science director who was dismissed after a colleague reported smelling cannabis in his company car has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were reasonable.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Branch manager dismissed for using 'dump codes' to bypass asset tracking system
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a branch manager who used 'dump codes' to circumvent the company's asset tracking system, rejecting his claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
Pregnant employee dismissed after raising health and safety concerns: tribunal awards £43,000
A former employee who was dismissed while pregnant after raising health and safety concerns has won her claims for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. The East London Employment Tribunal awarded her £43,153.60 in compensation.