Senior technician dismissed after colleague's electric shock: fair dismissal upheld
A senior technician with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to lock out a damaged charger, leading to a colleague's electric shock. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and homophobic harassment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #health-and-safety
- #lock-out-tag-out
- #electric-shock
- #litigant-in-person
- #sexual-orientation-harassment
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior technician from 2011 until dismissal on 2 August 2022.
- On 21 June 2022, a damaged charger cable was reported to the claimant; he and a colleague turned the charger but did not lock it out.
- On 17 July 2022, a colleague suffered an electric shock from the charger, requiring hospital treatment.
- The respondent investigated and dismissed the claimant for serious breach of health and safety and loss of trust and confidence.
- The claimant alleged homophobic harassment by managers, but the tribunal found no such conduct occurred.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a facilities/electrical technician.
-
Alleged homophobic remark
Claimant alleges Mr Cockcroft made a remark about his sexuality during a conversation about a promotion.
-
Damaged charger reported
A colleague reported a damaged charger cable to the claimant; he and Mr Link turned the charger but did not lock it out.
-
Work permit signed
Claimant signed a permit to work certifying the area as safe, without inspecting the charger.
-
Electric shock incident
A colleague suffered an electric shock from the damaged charger and was hospitalised.
-
Investigation started
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into a serious health and safety breach.
-
Dismissal
After a disciplinary hearing, Mr Dobinson decided to dismiss the claimant for misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant appealed the dismissal; Mr Cartwright upheld the decision.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination to the tribunal.
-
Tribunal judgment
Tribunal dismissed both claims, finding no harassment and fair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct (failing to follow lock-out/tag-out procedures) and whether he was subjected to harassment related to sexual orientation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The dismissal was fair because the employer reasonably believed the claimant had committed a serious health and safety breach by failing to lock out the damaged charger, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The harassment claim failed because the alleged homophobic remark was not made, and the tribunal found no other evidence of harassment.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for a single serious health and safety breach if the employer's investigation and decision are reasonable.
- Lock-out/tag-out procedures are critical; failing to follow them can lead to dismissal even if no harm was intended.
- Allegations of discrimination must be supported by evidence; a tribunal will not infer harassment from a general feeling of unfairness.
- Litigants in person should ensure they understand the legal tests for unfair dismissal and discrimination, as the tribunal's duty to assist does not replace the need to prove the case.
A costly oversight
A senior technician with 12 years' service lost his job after a colleague suffered an electric shock from a damaged charger that the technician had failed to lock out. The incident occurred when the technician and a colleague turned the charger but did not isolate it properly, and later signed a permit to work certifying the area as safe. The employer, Teva UK Limited, investigated and dismissed him for gross misconduct, citing a serious breach of health and safety and loss of trust and confidence.
The claimant argued that the dismissal was predetermined and that he had been subjected to homophobic harassment by managers. However, the tribunal found no evidence of harassment and concluded that the employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted that the employer had conducted a thorough investigation and followed a fair procedure, including an appeal.
What could have been done differently?
The technician could have followed the lock-out/tag-out procedure by physically locking the charger and tagging it as unsafe. Instead, he relied on turning the charger off, which was insufficient. The employer could have reinforced training on these procedures, but the tribunal found that the technician was experienced and should have known better.
Why this case matters
This case shows that even long-serving employees are not immune to dismissal for serious health and safety breaches. Employers must balance the employee's length of service against the severity of the misconduct. Here, the tribunal accepted that the breach was so serious that dismissal was proportionate. For employees, it highlights the importance of following safety protocols to the letter, regardless of how minor the risk may seem.
Similar cases
Car salesman's claim over 'paedophile' taunts fails: comments not linked to sexual orientation
An employment tribunal dismissed a car salesman's harassment claim after finding that derogatory comments calling him a paedophile were not related to his sexual orientation. The claimant, who represented himself, was unable to link the abuse to a protected characteristic.
32-year field engineer dismissed for falsely reporting stolen gas detector
A field engineer with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after falsely reporting his gas detection unit stolen and failing to use it on four jobs. The tribunal upheld Openreach's decision.
Two long-serving managers dismissed for refusing to run a trial: conduct dismissal upheld
Two production managers with 34 and 42 years' service were fairly dismissed after refusing to manage a trial of Cumberland sausage rings. The tribunal rejected their claims of health and safety detriment and unfair dismissal.
35-year postman dismissed for walking through prohibited area without hi-vis: dismissal fair
A postman with 35 years' unblemished service was fairly dismissed after walking through a prohibited area without a high-vis jacket, the tribunal ruled. He refused to engage in the disciplinary process.