Dismissed for stealing diesel: procedural flaws made it unfair
A Highways Maintenance Operative was unfairly dismissed after admitting to stealing diesel, but the tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process were procedurally flawed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #dishonesty
- #procedural-unfairness
- #summary-dismissal
- #environmental-risk
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Highways Maintenance Operative from 24 July 2017.
- On 17 September 2022, the claimant and a colleague moved containers of diesel to a ditch intending to sell the diesel.
- The claimant initially lied to his employer about disposing of the containers at a refuse tip.
- The claimant later admitted the lie in a written confession on 23 September 2022.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant summarily on 11 October 2022 for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary procedure were unfair, but dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Highways Maintenance Operative.
-
Incident with diesel containers
Claimant and colleague moved containers of diesel to a ditch, intending to sell the diesel. Claimant lied to the control centre about disposal.
-
Suspension and confession
Claimant was asked to write a statement, repeated the lie, then later admitted the truth by phone.
-
Written confession
Claimant sent an email confessing to the lie and the plan to sell the diesel.
-
Disciplinary meeting
Claimant attended a meeting he thought was informal, but it was a formal disciplinary hearing. He was not informed of his right to be accompanied.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant received a letter dismissing him summarily for gross misconduct.
-
Tribunal hearing
Full merits hearing at Leicester Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found unfair dismissal but dismissed breach of contract claim. Remedy hearing to be listed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair in all the circumstances, focusing on whether the investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal decided the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but his breach of contract claim was dismissed.
Key reasons:
- The disciplinary meeting was conducted in a procedurally unfair manner: the claimant was not told it was a formal hearing and was not informed of his right to be accompanied.
- However, the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses given the serious dishonesty.
- A remedy hearing will be listed to determine compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees must be clearly informed that a meeting is a formal disciplinary hearing and of their right to be accompanied, otherwise the process may be unfair.
- Even when an employee admits serious misconduct, a fair investigation and procedure are still required to avoid an unfair dismissal finding.
- The range of reasonable responses test means that if dismissal is a possible outcome for the misconduct, the employer's decision may be upheld even if the procedure was flawed, but compensation may still be awarded.
- Employers should ensure that any meeting that could lead to dismissal is properly constituted and the employee is given adequate notice and opportunity to prepare.
This case illustrates how a fundamentally fair outcome can be undermined by procedural errors. The claimant, a Highways Maintenance Operative with five years' service, admitted to moving diesel containers to a ditch with the intention of selling them, and initially lied about it. The employer, Amey Services Ltd, dismissed him summarily for gross misconduct.
What went wrong procedurally?
The tribunal found that the disciplinary process was flawed. The claimant attended what he thought was an informal meeting, but it was treated as a formal disciplinary hearing. He was not told of his right to be accompanied, which is a basic right under the ACAS Code of Practice. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence on this point, finding the employer's account less credible.
Why the result matters
Despite the serious dishonesty, the tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the procedure was not reasonable. This sends a clear message: even in clear-cut misconduct cases, employers must follow proper process. The remedy hearing will determine compensation, which may be reduced if the tribunal finds the claimant contributed to his dismissal or that he would have been dismissed anyway with a fair procedure.
For employees, this case shows that procedural failures can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal even when the underlying conduct is serious. For employers, it reinforces the importance of adhering to the ACAS Code and ensuring disciplinary meetings are properly convened.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.