Four family members dismissed from supermarket: roof confrontation, assault, and theft allegations
Three employees were fairly dismissed for a roof confrontation and assault, but a fourth was unfairly dismissed for taking goods without payment. The tribunal reduced her compensation to zero due to her conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #roof-incident
- #assault
- #theft-allegation
- #family-dispute
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- C1, C2, and C3 were dismissed for gross misconduct after a roof incident and an assault.
- C4 was dismissed for taking items from the shop without payment.
- The tribunal found C4's dismissal unfair because the employer failed to consider her belief that she was entitled to take goods.
- C1, C2, and C3's dismissals were fair as they had reasonable grounds and followed a fair process.
- C4's basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 100% for contributory conduct.
- A Polkey deduction of 50% was applied to C4's compensatory award.
Timeline
-
Death of Senior
Mr Mestan Yasar Halim, father of C4 and Mr Halim, died.
-
Family dispute
Altercation between Mr Halim and C4; C2 and C4 stopped attending work but continued to be paid.
-
Proposed written contracts
Respondent sent draft written contracts to all claimants; claimants refused to sign.
-
Roof incident
C1, C2, and C3 confronted a maintenance worker on the roof of a neighbouring building; C1 carried a crowbar, C2 made threats, C3 slammed a window.
-
Assault incident
C2 physically attacked another employee (Z) in a back office; C2 later convicted of common assault.
-
C4 shopping incident
C4 took items from the supermarket without paying; she believed she was entitled to do so.
-
Dismissal of C1 and C3
C1 and C3 summarily dismissed for gross misconduct related to the roof incident.
-
Dismissal of C2
C2 summarily dismissed for gross misconduct related to the roof and assault incidents.
-
Dismissal of C4
C4 summarily dismissed for theft of goods from the supermarket.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissals of four employees from a family-run supermarket were fair or unfair, focusing on whether the employer had a reasonable belief in misconduct and followed a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the dismissals of three employees involved in a roof confrontation and an assault, finding the employer had reasonable grounds and followed a fair process. However, the fourth employee's dismissal for taking items without payment was unfair because the employer did not properly consider her explanation that she believed she was entitled.
Despite finding unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied a 50% Polkey deduction (chance she would have been dismissed anyway) and a 100% reduction for contributory conduct, meaning she received no compensation for the unfair dismissal. She was awarded £6,000 for notice pay.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider an employee's genuine belief or explanation before dismissing for theft, even if the belief seems unreasonable.
- A fair procedure includes giving the employee a chance to respond to allegations and considering any mitigating factors.
- Employees who contribute to their own dismissal through misconduct may see their compensation reduced or eliminated.
- Family disputes in family-run businesses do not excuse gross misconduct like assault or threatening behaviour.
This case shows how difficult it can be for family-run businesses to manage disciplinary issues when family members are involved. Four employees were dismissed after a series of incidents: a confrontation on a roof where one carried a crowbar, an assault on another employee, and a separate incident where one employee took items from the shop without paying.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the dismissals of the three employees involved in the roof incident and assault were fair. The employer had reasonable grounds to believe they had committed gross misconduct and followed a fair process. However, the fourth employee's dismissal was unfair because the employer did not properly consider her belief that she was entitled to take goods from the shop. The tribunal noted that the employer failed to investigate her explanation adequately.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by giving the employee a proper opportunity to explain her actions and considering her belief, even if it was mistaken. A fair investigation and a meeting to discuss the matter might have led to a different outcome or at least a fairer process.
Why this matters
This case highlights that even in family-run businesses, employers must follow fair procedures and consider employees' explanations. It also shows that employees who engage in serious misconduct may still be fairly dismissed, but those who are unfairly dismissed may receive no compensation if they contributed to their own dismissal. The 100% reduction for contributory conduct means the employee received nothing for the unfair dismissal, only notice pay.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.