Customer assistant dismissed for misusing discount code: partial win after 9 years' service
A Lidl customer assistant was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct over a chicken discount code and a dwarf plant purchase, but the tribunal awarded only £633.60 after finding she was 90% to blame.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after asking a colleague to purchase chicken using an incorrect discount code.
- The claimant also purchased a dwarf plant at a 30% discount without proper authorisation.
- The tribunal found that the investigation into the chicken allegation was reasonable, but the investigation into the dwarf plant was deficient.
- The claimant had 9 years of service and was on a written warning for a previous cash handling issue.
- The dismissing officer stated he would have dismissed based solely on the chicken allegation.
- The tribunal awarded 10% of the basic award after a 90% contributory conduct reduction.
Timeline
-
Incident with chicken and dwarf plant
The claimant asked a colleague to purchase chicken on her behalf using an incorrect discount code. She also purchased a dwarf plant at a 30% discount. The colleague reported the incident to management.
-
Investigation hearing
The claimant was interviewed by store manager Desmond Premph regarding the allegations.
-
Claimant raised grievance
The claimant submitted a grievance alleging she was targeted by management.
-
First disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing was chaired by Mr Murphy. The claimant attended without representation.
-
Reconvened disciplinary hearing
After further investigation, the reconvened hearing took place. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed in writing
The claimant received a dismissal letter confirming the decision and that her grievance was not upheld.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing was chaired by Mr Pepper. The appeal was dismissed.
-
Employment tribunal hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions.
-
Employment tribunal hearing (day 2)
The tribunal concluded the hearing and gave oral judgment.
-
Written judgment issued
The written reasons for the judgment were sent to the parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Lidl had reasonable grounds to believe the employee was guilty of gross misconduct, whether the investigation was reasonable, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the investigation into the dwarf plant discount was deficient, but the employee's own conduct contributed significantly to her dismissal.
- Basic award: £633.60 (reduced by 90% for contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% Polkey reduction applied)
- Total: £633.60
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must investigate each allegation separately; a flawed investigation into one part of the case can make the whole dismissal unfair.
- Even if the dismissal is unfair, a high percentage of contributory fault (here 90%) can reduce compensation to just the basic award.
- A Polkey reduction can wipe out the compensatory award if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a proper process.
- Length of service (9 years) does not automatically prevent a finding of contributory fault if the employee's own actions were dishonest.
A customer assistant with nine years' service at Lidl was dismissed for gross misconduct after asking a colleague to buy chicken using an incorrect discount code and purchasing a dwarf plant at a 30% discount without proper authorisation. The colleague reported the incident, leading to an investigation and disciplinary process that ended in dismissal.
What went wrong for Lidl
The tribunal found that the investigation into the chicken allegation was reasonable, but the investigation into the dwarf plant was deficient. The dismissing officer, Mr Murphy, stated he would have dismissed based solely on the chicken allegation. However, because the flawed investigation into the plant purchase tainted the overall process, the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
Why the award was so low
The tribunal applied a 90% reduction for contributory conduct, reflecting the employee's own dishonest behaviour. It also applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning the compensatory award was wiped out entirely because the employee would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process. The result was a basic award of just £633.60.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that even a partially unfair dismissal can result in minimal compensation if the employee's own actions are largely to blame. Employers should ensure each allegation is properly investigated, but employees who engage in dishonest conduct should not expect significant awards even if the process has flaws.
Similar cases
Ward manager unfairly dismissed after employer mistook cannabis metabolite for cannabis
A 40-year nursing veteran was unfairly dismissed by Priory Healthcare after the employer mistakenly believed a urine test showed she was under the influence of cannabis at work. The tribunal found the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
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.
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.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: unfair dismissal for lack of disciplinary hearing
A night care assistant with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after being seen asleep on duty, because her employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing before sacking her. The tribunal awarded £962.79, reduced by 75% for her contributory conduct.