Driver summarily dismissed for using vehicle with permission: unfair dismissal

This case shows how a seemingly straightforward conduct dismissal can unravel when the employer fails to follow basic fairness. The claimant, a driver and machine operator with six years' service, was summarily dismissed by telephone after a meeting about using a company vehicle. He had permission to use the vehicle, it was a common practice, and a colleague who was with him was not disciplined. The tribunal found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair.

What the employer did wrong

The employer's decision to dismiss was unreasonable given the circumstances. The claimant had permission, the practice was common, and there was no consistent treatment. The dismissal was also procedurally flawed: the decision was made by telephone the same evening, without proper investigation or opportunity to respond. The employer did not attend the hearing to defend its actions.

Why compensation was limited

Although the claimant won his unfair dismissal claim, the compensation was limited because the employer went into administration just over a month after his dismissal. The claimant accepted he would have been made redundant at that point, so no compensatory award for future loss of earnings was made. He received a basic award of £4,896 and notice pay of £3,880.20, reflecting the period he should have worked before the redundancy would have occurred.

What this means for similar claims

This case is a reminder that even if an employer has a genuine reason for dismissal, the process must be fair and the decision must be within the range of reasonable responses. Inconsistency in how different employees are treated is a strong indicator of unfairness. It also highlights that when an employer becomes insolvent, claimants may still recover basic awards and notice pay from the National Insurance Fund, but compensatory awards for future losses may be limited.