Dismissed after final written warning: conduct decision upheld by tribunal
A client care associate with six years' service was dismissed for aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences while on a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #conduct-dismissal
- #final-written-warning
- #inappropriate-touching-allegation
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a client care associate from 23 June 2016 until dismissal on 28 April 2022.
- He received a first written warning on 23 July 2021 and a final written warning on 1 December 2021 for customer complaints.
- On 30 March 2022, an altercation occurred with colleague Paul Kent, who called the claimant a racist; the claimant did not report it to management.
- On 19, 20, and 21 April 2022, the claimant attended work but left early without authorisation, and was aggressive towards his team leader.
- An allegation of inappropriate touching was made against the claimant on 21 April 2022, but the dismissing officer did not rely on it.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct, relying on aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences, given his final written warning.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a client care associate.
-
First written warning
Claimant received a first written warning for a customer complaint about rudeness.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received a final written warning for another customer complaint.
-
Altercation with Paul Kent
Claimant and Mr Kent argued; Mr Kent called the claimant a racist. The claimant did not report it.
-
Claimant off sick
Claimant was absent from work due to stress until 8 April 2022.
-
Meeting with team leader
Claimant was advised of the outcome of the investigation into the Kent incident; no formal disciplinary action.
-
Aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absence
Claimant raised his voice to his team leader and left work without permission.
-
Further unauthorised absence
Claimant attended work but left early after complaining of feeling unwell.
-
Inappropriate touching allegation
A colleague alleged the claimant touched her breast; claimant denied it. He also left work early.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting regarding his behaviour and the touching allegation.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for misconduct (aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences) after a disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal requested
Claimant appealed the dismissal but did not attend the arranged appeal hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct and whether he suffered race discrimination, harassment, or victimisation. The key issues were whether the employer had a fair reason and acted reasonably, and whether the treatment was because of race.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that Shred-it Ltd had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences) and carried out a reasonable investigation. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, particularly given the final written warning. The race discrimination claims failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the treatment was because of race.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A final written warning can make it easier for an employer to justify dismissal for further misconduct, even if the new incident alone might not warrant dismissal.
- Failing to report an altercation with a colleague can count against you if you later claim the employer failed to investigate properly.
- Leaving work early without authorisation, even if you feel unwell, can be treated as misconduct if you do not follow the correct procedure.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence that race was a factor; a general feeling of unfairness is not enough.
This case shows how a final written warning can tip the scales when an employer decides to dismiss for further misconduct. The claimant, a client care associate with six years' service, had already received a final written warning for customer complaints. When he later raised his voice to his team leader and left work early without permission on three consecutive days, the employer treated this as a final straw.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal looked at whether Shred-it Ltd genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, whether it had reasonable grounds for that belief, and whether it carried out a reasonable investigation. It found that the employer had a genuine belief based on the team leader's account and the claimant's own admission that he left early. The investigation was reasonable, including a meeting with the claimant before the disciplinary hearing. The dismissing officer did not rely on an unsubstantiated allegation of inappropriate touching, which the tribunal noted as fair.
Why the race discrimination claims failed
The claimant also alleged race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. He pointed to a colleague calling him a racist and an earlier comment about being an 'illegal immigrant'. However, the tribunal found that the colleague's comment was not related to race, and the 'illegal immigrant' comment was not proven. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's treatment was not because of his race.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers can rely on a final written warning to justify dismissal for further misconduct, provided they follow a fair process. For employees, it highlights the importance of following absence procedures and reporting issues promptly. Without evidence linking treatment to a protected characteristic, a race discrimination claim is unlikely to succeed.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing and conduct dismissal: NHS trust's decision upheld
A Health Care Support Worker with four years' service was fairly dismissed for failing to treat a service user with dignity, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of whistleblowing detriment and race discrimination.
Radiographer's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
An NHS radiographer who was dismissed over right-to-work concerns had her unfair dismissal claim rejected because she presented it 18 days late. The tribunal found she could have filed on time.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
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.