Electrician dismissed for switching on wet distribution board: conduct dismissal upheld
An electrician who switched on a water-damaged electrical board, creating a serious safety risk, was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claim that the dismissal was due to his trade union membership.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for failing to follow instructions to safely isolate a water-damaged distribution board and for switching it on while wet.
- The claimant admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he did not lock out the distribution board and that he turned the board on.
- The claimant alleged that the dismissal was due to his trade union membership and activities, but the tribunal found no evidence to support this.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple case management orders, including providing particulars and a witness statement.
- The tribunal dismissed both the automatic unfair dismissal claim (under s152 TULRCA) and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £12,000 for continuing to pursue claims after a deposit order was made.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment with respondent
The claimant commenced employment as an electrician with ABM Technical Solutions at Broadgate Campus.
-
Claimant emailed HR about pay and union
The claimant emailed HR, copying his Unite union representative, expressing dissatisfaction about his pay and feeling manipulated.
-
Incident leading to dismissal
The claimant was instructed to isolate a water-damaged distribution board but instead switched it on, creating a serious health and safety risk.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended following a third-party request for removal from site due to the health and safety breach.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held where the claimant admitted he did not lock out the board and turned it on. He was accompanied by a trade union representative.
-
Dismissal for gross misconduct
The claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct for failing to follow instructions and switching on a wet electrical board.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal was heard by Mr Paul Douglas, who upheld the dismissal. Neither the claimant nor his union representative mentioned trade union membership.
-
Preliminary hearing and deposit order
Employment Judge Brown struck out discrimination claims and ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £450 to continue his unfair dismissal claims.
-
Final hearing (liability)
A three-day final hearing took place before Employment Judge Heath and panel members. The claimant was in person.
-
Judgment dismissing claims
The tribunal dismissed both the automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal claims, finding the dismissal was for conduct and was fair.
-
Costs hearing
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £12,000 in costs for continuing to pursue claims after the deposit order.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because of his trade union membership or activities, and whether his ordinary unfair dismissal claim was well-founded given the employer's reason of conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct by failing to follow safety instructions and switching on a wet distribution board, and that this belief was based on a reasonable investigation. The dismissal was procedurally fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
The claimant's allegation that the dismissal was due to his trade union membership was rejected as there was no evidence to support it. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not mentioned union membership at the disciplinary or appeal hearings.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £12,000 for continuing to pursue claims after a deposit order was made.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct if they have a genuine belief, based on a reasonable investigation, that the employee committed a serious safety breach.
- Allegations of trade union discrimination must be supported by evidence; simply being a union member is not enough to prove an automatically unfair dismissal.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders, such as providing particulars or witness statements, can lead to deposit orders and costs being awarded against you.
- If a deposit order is made, continuing to pursue a claim without strong evidence risks being ordered to pay the other side's costs.
This case shows how seriously employment tribunals take health and safety breaches, even when the employee has a clean disciplinary record. The electrician, who had five years' service, was instructed to isolate a water-damaged distribution board but instead switched it on while it was still wet, creating a risk of serious injury or death. He admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he did not lock out the board and turned it on. The employer dismissed him for gross misconduct, and the tribunal upheld that decision as fair.
What the employer did right
ABM Technical Solutions carried out a reasonable investigation, held a disciplinary hearing where the claimant was accompanied by a union rep, and considered an appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision to dismiss was within the 'range of reasonable responses' – a key test in unfair dismissal claims. The claimant's argument that he was dismissed because of his trade union membership failed because he had not raised it during the disciplinary process, and there was no evidence to link the dismissal to his union activities.
Why the result matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that gross misconduct – especially where safety is at risk – can justify dismissal even for a long-serving worker. For employers, it confirms that a fair process and a genuine belief in misconduct will protect a dismissal decision. The claimant also faced a costs order of £12,000 for continuing to pursue claims after a deposit order, highlighting the financial risks of bringing weak claims to tribunal.
Similar cases
Shift manager dismissed for lone working and asking staff to stay after clocking out
A Lidl shift manager who admitted lone working and asking colleagues to remain in store after clocking out was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled.
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Trainer dismissed for failing to conduct practical assessment: a fair conduct dismissal
A manual handling equipment trainer with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to carry out practical assessments for two returning employees. The tribunal upheld DHL's decision.
Assistant store manager dismissed for manipulating time-recording system: dismissal fair
An assistant store manager who allowed a colleague to work without clocking in and later falsified time records was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claim that lack of training excused the manipulation of the Kronos system.