32-year field engineer dismissed for falsely reporting stolen gas detector
A field engineer with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after falsely reporting his gas detection unit stolen and failing to use it on four jobs. The tribunal upheld Openreach's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #health-and-safety
- #gas-detection-unit
- #field-engineer
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimant was a field engineer employed by Openreach since 1989.
- On 14 July 2021, the claimant lost his gas detection unit (GDU) in Widnes.
- On 15 July 2021, the claimant falsely reported his GDU stolen, but it had been lost the previous day.
- An investigation found the claimant failed to use his GDU on four separate jobs between 30 June and 8 July 2021.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing and appeal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for a predecessor of Openreach.
-
GDU lost
The claimant lost his GDU while working in Widnes. It was handed in by a member of the public.
-
False report of theft
The claimant reported his GDU stolen, but it had been lost the previous day.
-
First investigatory meeting
Mr. Ismail met with the claimant, who initially claimed his GDU was stolen on 15 July but later admitted it was lost on 14 July.
-
Second investigatory meeting
The claimant was questioned about nine jobs where GDU use was not recorded. He provided explanations.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Mr. Baker chaired the hearing. The claimant was accompanied by a union representative.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr. Baker dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, finding four proven incidents of failing to use GDU.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's last day of employment.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr. McGinlay heard the appeal. The claimant was accompanied by his son.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr. McGinlay upheld the dismissal, overturning one finding but confirming the four key incidents.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct (failing to use a gas detection unit on four occasions and falsely reporting it stolen) was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that Openreach had a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation and a fair disciplinary process.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant failed to use his gas detection unit on four separate jobs, a critical health and safety requirement.
- He falsely reported the unit stolen when it had been lost the previous day.
- The disciplinary process was thorough, with an investigation, hearing, and appeal.
- The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for such serious misconduct.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not protect against dismissal for serious misconduct, especially when health and safety is at risk.
- Falsely reporting an incident (like a theft) can be treated as gross misconduct in itself, separate from the underlying issue.
- Employers should ensure a thorough investigation and fair process; if they do, tribunals are likely to uphold the dismissal.
- Employees in safety-critical roles must follow procedures strictly; even one failure can be grounds for dismissal.
A costly lapse in judgment
For 32 years, the field engineer had a clean record with Openreach. But a series of failures in July 2021 cost him his job. After losing his gas detection unit (GDU) while working in Widnes, he falsely reported it stolen the next day. An investigation also revealed he had failed to use the GDU on four separate jobs between 30 June and 8 July 2021.
Openreach treated the matter with the utmost seriousness. The GDU is a critical safety device: without it, the engineer could not detect flammable gas in underground structures, risking explosion, injury, or death. The company's disciplinary process found gross misconduct and dismissed him.
What Openreach did right
The tribunal noted that Openreach carried out a reasonable investigation, including two investigatory meetings, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal. The dismissal officer found four proven incidents of failing to use the GDU, and the appeal officer upheld the decision. The process was fair and thorough.
What the employee could have done differently
The claimant admitted he lost the GDU and then lied about it. Had he been honest from the start, the outcome might have been different. The tribunal acknowledged his long service and good character, but the seriousness of the misconduct – particularly the false report – outweighed those factors.
Why this case matters
This case shows that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for health and safety breaches. Employers must still follow a fair process, but if they do, tribunals will respect their decision. For employees, the lesson is clear: honesty and strict adherence to safety procedures are non-negotiable, regardless of length of service.
Similar cases
Two long-serving managers dismissed for refusing to run a trial: conduct dismissal upheld
Two production managers with 34 and 42 years' service were fairly dismissed after refusing to manage a trial of Cumberland sausage rings. The tribunal rejected their claims of health and safety detriment and unfair dismissal.
Postman and union rep dismissed for failing to follow vehicle safety procedure
A postman with 18 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to apply the HIT procedure, causing a vehicle to roll into a parked car. The tribunal upheld the dismissal as within the range of reasonable responses.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.