Factory manager dismissed for unsafe unloading: conduct dismissal upheld
A factory manager with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after a wall saw fell during unloading, causing damage and minor injuries. The tribunal upheld the decision, citing a reasonable investigation and a breakdown in trust.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #health-and-safety
- #damage-to-equipment
- #lone-worker
- #lack-of-remorse
- #intimidation-allegation
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed as Factory Manager from 23 March 2009 until summary dismissal on 12 July 2022.
- On 27 May 2022, while unloading a Wall Saw at the new Kettering site, the Saw fell, causing damage and minor injuries to the Claimant.
- The Claimant was suspended on 30 May 2022 and subsequently invited to investigation and disciplinary hearings.
- The disciplinary hearing on 5 July 2022 considered three allegations: unsafe unloading, health and safety risk, and verbal aggression towards a colleague.
- The Respondent upheld all three allegations and dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct, citing lack of remorse and irretrievable breakdown in trust.
- The Claimant appealed but no appeal hearing took place due to inability to agree on a date.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Factory Manager at SIPS (UK) Ltd.
-
Wall Saw incident
While unloading a Wall Saw at the new Kettering site, the Saw fell, causing damage to the Saw and forklift, and minor injuries to the Claimant.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation into the incident. He had a verbal exchange with Mrs. Palmer, which she described as intimidating.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting via video link, chaired by Mr. Farrer of Citation.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing chaired by Ms. Rhodes of Citation. Claimant was accompanied by a fellow employee.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, effective immediately, without notice or pay in lieu.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal, citing lack of risk assessment, failure to obtain witness statement from Bennie driver, and denial of aggression.
-
New employment
Claimant started new employment with a gross monthly salary of £2,083.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was fair, considering the adequacy of the investigation and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
- The employer had a genuine belief in the three allegations: unsafe unloading, health and safety risk, and verbal aggression.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, and dismissal was a proportionate response given the seriousness of the conduct and the breakdown in trust.
- No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough and consider all relevant evidence, including witness statements and risk assessments.
- A breakdown in trust and confidence can justify dismissal even if the misconduct itself is not gross, but the employer must show it was reasonable to treat it as such.
- Employees should cooperate with investigations and avoid behaviour that could be perceived as intimidating or aggressive, especially in health and safety contexts.
- Length of service does not automatically protect against dismissal for serious misconduct if the employer's process is reasonable.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how tribunals assess the fairness of a conduct dismissal when an employee with long service is dismissed for a single incident. The factory manager, employed for 13 years, was summarily dismissed after a wall saw fell during unloading, causing damage and minor injuries. The employer also alleged that he was verbally aggressive to a colleague afterwards.
The tribunal examined whether the employer's investigation and decision fell within the 'range of reasonable responses' – the key test for fairness. It found that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation that included witness accounts and the manager's own admissions. The disciplinary hearing considered all three allegations, and the decision to dismiss was not outside the band of reasonable sanctions, given the health and safety implications and the breakdown in trust.
What the employer did right
The employer suspended the manager promptly, held an investigation meeting, and a separate disciplinary hearing with a different decision-maker. The manager was accompanied and given the chance to respond. The appeal process was attempted, though no hearing took place due to scheduling issues – but this did not render the dismissal unfair. The tribunal noted that the employer's procedures were broadly in line with the Acas code.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that even long-serving staff can be fairly dismissed for a single act of misconduct if the employer follows a fair process and the conduct is serious enough. For employers, it shows that a reasonable investigation – even if not perfect – and a clear rationale for dismissal can successfully defend a claim. The key is to act within the band of reasonable responses, not to achieve perfection.
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.