Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: gross misconduct finding overturned
Two employees were unfairly dismissed after being sacked for gross misconduct without a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the process was procedurally flawed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #acad-code-uplift
- #contributory-conduct
- #no-disciplinary-hearing
- #failure-to-appeal
Key facts
- Both claimants had clean disciplinary records before the incident.
- On 7 February 2020, the claimants reacted angrily when given letters about new terms and conditions.
- The respondent suspended the claimants on full pay pending investigation.
- The respondent dismissed the claimants by letter on 30 March 2020 without holding a disciplinary hearing.
- The respondent failed to provide an appeal despite offering one.
- The tribunal found the dismissals unfair due to procedural failings.
Timeline
-
Mr Fuller started employment
Mr Fuller began working for the respondent as Head of Welding.
-
Mr Jackson started employment
Mr Jackson began working for the respondent as a welder and MOT tester.
-
Mr Fuller raised concerns
Mr Fuller met with Mrs Oorloff to raise concerns about health and safety, technical issues, and Mr Oorloff's treatment.
-
Mrs Oorloff responded to concerns
Mrs Oorloff wrote to both claimants stating no evidence of bullying was found and warning about conduct.
-
Incident at work
Mrs Oorloff gave the claimants letters about new terms; the claimants reacted angrily, raising voices and pointing. They were sent home.
-
Suspension
Mrs Oorloff emailed the claimants confirming suspension on full pay pending investigation.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Mrs Oorloff invited the claimants to a disciplinary hearing on 25 March 2020.
-
First national lockdown announced
The UK government announced a national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Oorloff wrote to the claimants dismissing them with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal submitted
Mr Fuller submitted a full appeal document; the respondent did not reply.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employees for gross misconduct without a disciplinary hearing and without providing a proper appeal process.
The outcome
The tribunal found that both claimants were unfairly dismissed. The key reason was the complete failure to hold a disciplinary hearing before dismissal, despite inviting them to one. The employer also failed to provide an appeal after promising one.
- The dismissals were procedurally unfair.
- The tribunal will determine remedy at a later hearing, including whether a fair procedure would have led to dismissal anyway (Polkey reduction) and whether the claimants contributed to their dismissal.
- The claimants had clean disciplinary records before the incident.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must hold a disciplinary hearing before dismissing for gross misconduct, even in difficult circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Failing to provide an appeal after offering one is a serious procedural failing that can make a dismissal unfair.
- Employees with clean disciplinary records are more likely to succeed in unfair dismissal claims if the process is flawed.
What this case shows in practice
Two long-serving employees with clean disciplinary records were dismissed for gross misconduct without ever being given a chance to state their case at a hearing. The employer, Kingsley Cars Limited, reacted to an angry exchange over new terms by suspending the men, then dismissing them by letter after cancelling the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found this was a fundamental breach of fair procedure.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer had initially scheduled a disciplinary hearing, but then cancelled it and dismissed directly. Even in the early days of the pandemic, a remote hearing or a postponement would have been reasonable. Offering an appeal and then ignoring it compounded the unfairness. A fair process would have given the employees an opportunity to explain their behaviour and potentially mitigate the outcome.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that procedural fairness is not optional. Even where an employer believes misconduct is serious, they must follow the ACAS Code of Practice: investigate, hold a hearing, and provide a right of appeal. The tribunal will consider at a remedy hearing whether the employees would have been dismissed anyway, but the finding of unfairness stands. For employees, this shows that a flawed process can overturn even a gross misconduct dismissal.
Similar cases
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.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
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.