Driver dismissed for urinating on loading dock after choosing coffee over toilet break
A driver with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after urinating on a loading dock in full view of CCTV. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision, finding the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #urinating-in-public
- #reputational-damage
- #cctv-evidence
- #overactive-bladder
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant urinated on a loading dock of another company while on a delivery run.
- The claimant had driven for 3 hours 50 minutes without stopping and was aware of needing the toilet for 3 hours.
- The claimant chose to go to Greggs for coffee instead of returning to the depot where toilet facilities were available.
- The claimant initially lied to a witness, claiming the urine was a leak from the air conditioning.
- The claimant had a good employment record and was a well-liked driver for 6 years.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a fair procedure.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent as a driver.
-
Incident occurred
The claimant urinated on the loading dock of Red Distribution in Tewkesbury after driving for nearly 4 hours without a break.
-
Investigation meeting
Tony Holden conducted an investigation meeting with the claimant, who admitted urinating and said he needed the toilet for three hours.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
The claimant was sent a letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing on 14 July 2022.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing was held by Mr Derrick. The claimant accepted the conduct and was shown CCTV footage.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr Derrick informed the claimant that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and he was dismissed.
-
Dismissal letter
The claimant received a letter confirming dismissal effective 18 July 2022 and was informed of his right to appeal.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Russell heard the appeal. The claimant presented a GP letter diagnosing overactive bladder and urge urinary incontinence.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss the driver for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer could have taken in the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. The key reason was that the employer had carried out a fair procedure and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The driver had urinated on a loading dock of another company, which was captured on CCTV and witnessed by an employee. He had driven for nearly four hours without stopping, passed several service stations with toilets, and chose to go to Greggs for coffee instead of returning to the depot where toilet facilities were available. The employer considered the driver's good record and his medical condition (overactive bladder) but concluded that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct due to reputational damage. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct even when the employee has a long service record and is otherwise well-liked, if the conduct causes reputational damage.
- A fair procedure, including investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal, is critical to defending a dismissal at tribunal.
- Employees should use available toilet facilities during long journeys rather than risking public urination, especially when CCTV is present.
- A medical condition like overactive bladder may be considered in mitigation but does not automatically make dismissal unfair if the employee had opportunities to avoid the incident.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how employment tribunals approach gross misconduct dismissals where the employee's actions cause reputational harm to the employer. The driver, a well-liked employee with six years of unblemished service, urinated on the loading dock of another company while on a delivery run. The incident was captured on CCTV and witnessed by a third-party employee, leading to a complaint. The tribunal accepted that the employer had a genuine concern about reputational damage, as the van was identifiable as belonging to the company.
What the employer did right
Eastbrook Logistics Ltd followed a thorough process: an investigation meeting the day after the incident, a disciplinary hearing where the driver was shown CCTV footage, and an appeal hearing where the driver presented a GP letter diagnosing overactive bladder. The employer considered the driver's explanation and medical evidence but concluded that the conduct was so serious that dismissal was appropriate. The tribunal noted that the driver had passed several service stations with toilets during his journey and chose to go to Greggs for coffee instead of returning to the depot, which had toilet facilities. This undermined his argument that he had no choice but to urinate in public.
Why the result matters
The decision reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer if the employer's decision falls within the 'range of reasonable responses'. Even where an employee has a medical condition, the employer is entitled to weigh the seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating factors. The driver's initial lie to a witness (claiming the urine was from an air conditioning leak) also counted against him. For employees, the lesson is clear: when faced with a need to urinate during a long drive, stopping at a service station or returning to the depot is far safer than risking public urination, especially in a visible location with CCTV.
Similar cases
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: unauthorised absences justified gross misconduct
A security officer with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed he left his post without authorisation on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Security officer dismissed for feinting punch at cadet: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A security officer who feinted a punch at a cadet after being sworn at was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected his claim that a colleague was treated more leniently for a similar incident.
Bus driver dismissed for speeding and running a red light: dismissal upheld as fair
A bus driver with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him speeding and running a red light, leading to a customer complaint. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.