Transport manager dismissed for gross misconduct after following boss's instruction: unfair dismissal
A transport manager who was summarily dismissed for sending a cancellation email using his boss's name has won his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found the employer fabricated the reason. The case settled for £15,000.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Transport Manager from 4 January 2013 to 3 January 2021.
- On 15 July 2020, Mr Tomicki instructed the claimant to cancel the contract with BKW Transportation.
- The claimant sent a cancellation email on 20 July 2020, using Mr Tomicki's name and mobile number.
- The claimant was on sick leave from 22 July 2020 to 4 January 2021 due to work-related stress.
- Upon return to work on 4 January 2021, the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair, with no reasonable investigation.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as Transport Manager.
-
Instruction to cancel contract
Mr Tomicki told the claimant to cancel the BKW contract by Monday.
-
Cancellation email sent
Claimant sent email cancelling BKW contract, using Mr Tomicki's name and phone number.
-
Sick leave begins
Claimant went on sick leave due to cardiac issues and work-related stress.
-
Return to work and dismissal
Claimant returned to work and was handed a pre-prepared summary dismissal letter for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal, citing breach of ACAS Code.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by HR Manager Grubarek, who upheld the dismissal.
-
Liability hearing (day 1)
First day of the substantive hearing.
-
Liability hearing (day 2)
Second day of the substantive hearing.
-
Remedy hearing and settlement
Parties agreed settlement of £15,000; proceedings concluded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a fair investigation, and whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer had no reasonable grounds for believing the claimant had fabricated the email – the evidence showed he was simply following his boss's instruction. The employer also failed to carry out any investigation, hold a proper disciplinary hearing, or allow the claimant to be accompanied.
The claim was settled before a remedy hearing for a total of £15,000. The tribunal had indicated it would have applied a 20% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code and a 20% reduction for contributory conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are instructed by a manager to do something, make sure you get it in writing or keep a clear record of the instruction.
- Employers must carry out a reasonable investigation before dismissing for misconduct – a pre-prepared dismissal letter is a red flag.
- An employee who is summarily dismissed without notice may have a claim for wrongful dismissal as well as unfair dismissal.
- If an employer fails to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, a tribunal can increase compensation by up to 25%.
A dismissal that was always going to happen
The claimant, a transport manager with eight years' service, returned from five months of stress-related sick leave to find a pre-prepared dismissal letter waiting for him. The employer alleged he had committed gross misconduct by cancelling a contract with a supplier and using his boss's name in the cancellation email without permission. But the tribunal found that the claimant had simply followed an instruction from that same boss, Mr Tomicki, who had told him to cancel the contract because the supplier was failing to meet deliveries.
What the employer got wrong
The employer's case unravelled because it had not carried out any investigation before deciding to dismiss. There was no disciplinary hearing, no opportunity for the claimant to explain himself, and no minutes of the meeting where he was handed the letter. The appeal was heard by the HR manager, who was not impartial. The tribunal concluded that the employer had fabricated the misconduct allegation to get rid of a manager it saw as loyal to a rival owner.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will look closely at the quality of an employer's investigation and the genuineness of its belief in misconduct. A pre-determined outcome, especially one that follows a long period of sick leave, is likely to be unfair. The case also highlights the importance of the ACAS Code of Practice – the tribunal indicated it would have increased compensation by 20% because the employer failed to follow it. The settlement of £15,000 reflects the strength of the claimant's case.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed by email without hearing: unfair but 100% contributory conduct
A tribunal found that a security officer with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being sacked by email without any disciplinary hearing, but reduced her compensation to zero because her own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal.
Apprentice carpenter dismissed for taking unauthorised holiday: no investigation or hearing
An apprentice carpenter was unfairly dismissed after taking a week's holiday despite his employer's refusal. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £918.13, including unlawful deduction claims.
Legal executive unfairly dismissed after flawed disciplinary process
A legal executive was unfairly dismissed by ODT Professional Services Limited after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found fundamentally unfair. She was awarded £2,621.57 after reductions for contributory fault and the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Dismissed for helping on a farm while off sick: unfair dismissal after 36 years' service
A team leader with 36 years' service was unfairly dismissed after covert surveillance showed him helping at a farm while on sick leave. The tribunal found the employer's procedure was flawed and the decision unreasonable.