Warehouse supervisor dismissed for falsifying stock while on final warning: dismissal fair
A warehouse supervisor with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed after falsifying stock counts while already on a final written warning for driving an overloaded vehicle. The tribunal found the employer followed a reasonable process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #legionnaires-disease
- #overloaded-vehicle
- #falsified-stock-counts
- #final-written-warning
- #verbal-warning
- #grievance
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Warehouse/Transport Supervisor from 1 July 2019.
- He contracted legionnaires disease in July 2020 and returned to work in September 2020.
- He received a verbal warning for inappropriate language in March 2021.
- He received a final written warning for driving an overloaded vehicle in April 2021.
- He was dismissed for falsifying stock counts while on a final written warning.
- The claimant did not appeal the final written warning but did appeal the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Driver at Reading Branch.
-
Promoted to Supervisor
Claimant promoted to Warehouse/Transport Supervisor.
-
Fell ill with legionnaires
Claimant contracted legionnaires disease, spent 8 days in intensive care.
-
Returned to work
Claimant returned to work after illness.
-
First suspension
Suspended after altercation; later received verbal warning for inappropriate language.
-
Verbal warning issued
Verbal warning for inappropriate comment, valid 6 months.
-
Overloaded vehicle incident
Claimant drove overloaded company vehicle.
-
Second suspension
Suspended for overloaded vehicle incident.
-
Final written warning
Final written warning for overloaded vehicle, valid 12 months.
-
Third suspension
Suspended for falsifying stock counts.
-
Dismissal
Dismissed for falsifying stock counts while on final written warning.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal outcome letter sent; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for misconduct (falsifying stock counts) while he was subject to a live final written warning, considering his length of service and the seriousness of the offence.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding the decision to dismiss was fair.
Key reasons:
- The employer had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the claimant falsified stock counts.
- The claimant was on a final written warning for a separate safety-related offence (overloaded vehicle), which made dismissal a proportionate response.
- The employer followed a fair procedure including suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Being on a final written warning makes it much harder to challenge a later dismissal for misconduct, even if the new offence is less serious.
- Employers can rely on a live final written warning when deciding to dismiss, provided they carry out a reasonable investigation into the new misconduct.
- Length of service does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if they commit further misconduct while under a final warning.
- Not appealing a final written warning can weaken a later unfair dismissal claim, as the tribunal may treat the warning as accepted.
When a final warning becomes the tipping point
This case shows how a live final written warning can turn a relatively minor new offence into a fair dismissal. The claimant, a warehouse supervisor with 12 years' service, had already received a final warning for driving an overloaded company vehicle. When he later falsified stock counts, the employer decided that was the last straw. The tribunal agreed.
What the employer did right
City Plumbing Supplies carried out a proper investigation: they suspended the claimant, held a disciplinary hearing, and gave him a right of appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had falsified the counts, and that belief was reasonable on the evidence. Because the final warning was still active, dismissal fell within the 'range of reasonable responses' – the legal test for fairness.
The human story
The claimant had survived a serious bout of legionnaires' disease and felt unsupported on his return to work. He argued that the employer was looking for reasons to dismiss him. However, the tribunal found no evidence of a hidden agenda. The employer had given him a chance after the overloaded vehicle incident, but the stock-count falsification broke that trust.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who accept a final written warning without appeal should know that it can be used against them in future. Even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed if they commit further misconduct while under a warning. For employers, the key is to follow a fair process – investigate, hear the employee's side, and consider the warning as part of the overall picture.
Similar cases
Assistant store manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Hugo Boss
An assistant store manager who resigned claiming constructive dismissal and race discrimination has lost his case. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and no evidence of discrimination.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.