Team leader dismissed for defeating safety system wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a safety breach. The tribunal found the employer's process was inadequate and reduced compensation by 20% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for defeating a safety system to access a roller cage area while the line was running.
- The respondent's investigation was flawed, relying heavily on a statement taken for a different purpose and failing to consider exculpatory evidence.
- The claimant had been asked by her shift manager to enter the cage area, and other managers and engineers also bypassed the safety system.
- The tribunal found a 20% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a proper procedure had been followed.
- The claimant contributed to her dismissal by 10% due to her conduct in allowing subordinates to enter the cage.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Elina Borodinova began employment at Stateside Food Ltd as an operative.
-
Accident at work
Andrew Holloway suffered a hand injury after entering the roller cage area while the line was running, triggering an investigation.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant was interviewed about her access to the roller cage area; she provided a signed statement on 23 November.
-
Claimant sent additional email
The claimant emailed Ashley Johnson and Ryan Battersby adding that her shift manager Mark Glover had also entered the cage and asked for her help.
-
Pizza order incident
The claimant stopped dough production early, leading to a shortage of pizza bases; she was told she would be in trouble.
-
Claimant resigned with notice
The claimant handed in a letter of resignation, giving notice until 2 April 2021, citing a return to Latvia.
-
Investigation meeting post-resignation
The claimant attended an investigation meeting conducted by Suzanne Allen and Robert Coar, which used her earlier statement as the basis.
-
Claimant dismissed
After a disciplinary hearing, the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for defeating the safety system and authorising staff to do so.
-
Appeal hearing
Glenn Heron heard the claimant's appeal; he offered demotion but the claimant declined, and the dismissal was upheld.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed, but her race discrimination claim failed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation and decision to dismiss for gross misconduct were within the range of reasonable responses, and whether the claimant contributed to her dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the investigation was flawed. It relied heavily on a statement taken for a different purpose and failed to consider evidence that the claimant was asked by her shift manager to enter the cage area, and that other managers also bypassed the safety system.
Compensation was reduced:
- 20% Polkey reduction (chance she would have been fairly dismissed with proper procedure)
- 10% contributory fault reduction (for allowing subordinates to enter the cage)
Total damages: £5,643.18
- Basic award: £2,905.20 (reduced by 10% contributory fault)
- Compensatory award: reduced by 20% Polkey and 10% contributory fault
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a thorough investigation that considers all relevant evidence, including exculpatory evidence and the context of the employee's actions.
- Relying on a statement taken for a different purpose without proper scrutiny can render a dismissal unfair.
- Employees who follow a manager's instruction may still face dismissal, but that context is crucial in assessing reasonableness.
- Even if an employee contributed to their dismissal, a fair process is still required; procedural flaws can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
A team leader with six years' service was dismissed for defeating a safety system to access a roller cage area while the production line was running. The employer argued this was gross misconduct, but the tribunal found the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The investigator relied heavily on a statement taken for a different purpose and failed to consider evidence that the claimant was asked by her shift manager to enter the cage, and that other managers and engineers also bypassed the safety system.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have conducted a more balanced investigation. They should have considered the claimant's email stating she was asked to help by her manager, and investigated whether others were also bypassing the system. A proper investigation might have led to a different outcome or a lesser sanction. The tribunal noted that the disciplinary decision was based on an incomplete picture.
Why the result matters
This case highlights that even in serious misconduct cases, procedural fairness is essential. The tribunal applied a 20% Polkey reduction because there was a chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process, and a 10% reduction for her own contributory conduct. But the core finding—that the dismissal was unfair—sends a clear message: employers cannot cut corners in investigations, especially when the employee's actions were at least partly influenced by management instructions.
Similar cases
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
NHS worker unfairly dismissed over alleged toilet filming after biased investigation
A community healthcare professional was unfairly dismissed by Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust after a biased investigation into an allegation he tried to film a colleague in the ladies' toilets. The tribunal awarded £21,469.59.
Caretaker unfairly dismissed after council panel included complainants' spouses
A part-time caretaker was unfairly dismissed by Fordbridge Town Council after a disciplinary panel included the wife of a complainant and an appeal panel included the husband of a witness. The tribunal awarded £1,060.41.
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.