Shouting at a colleague after a final warning: dismissal for conduct upheld
A production worker with a final written warning for threatening behaviour was fairly dismissed after shouting at a colleague. The tribunal also ordered Bighams Ltd to pay £648.96 for unpaid holiday.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Production Team Member from 23 April 2018 until dismissal on 16 December 2020.
- The claimant received a Final Written Warning on 13 August 2020 for threatening behaviour towards a team leader.
- On 19 November 2020, the claimant was involved in an incident where he shouted at a colleague, causing her to become upset and leave work.
- The respondent investigated the incident, obtaining statements from three witnesses.
- The claimant was dismissed for misconduct on 16 December 2020, with the decision upheld on appeal.
- The respondent agreed to pay the claimant £648.96 for accrued but untaken holiday leave.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Bighams Ltd as a Production Team Member at the Dulcote site.
-
First disciplinary investigation
Claimant investigated for eating on the production line; no sanction imposed.
-
Final Written Warning issued
Claimant received a Final Written Warning for threatening behaviour towards team leader Max Dudarev.
-
Incident with colleague
Claimant shouted at colleague Violetta Mroczek, causing her to become upset and leave work.
-
Claimant raised grievance
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair treatment.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing regarding aggressive behaviour and failure to follow management instruction.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for misconduct, taking into account the Final Written Warning.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal, arguing it was disproportionate and that witness statements were contradictory.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing chaired by Mr Czuba; all witnesses re-interviewed.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Bighams Ltd acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for misconduct, considering his previous final written warning and the November 2020 incident where he shouted at a colleague.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the recent final warning.
The tribunal also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim (no breach of contract) and the unauthorised deductions claim. However, by consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £648.96 for accrued but untaken holiday leave.
Lessons & takeaways
- A final written warning for similar behaviour makes it much harder to argue that a subsequent misconduct dismissal is disproportionate.
- Employers should ensure they carry out a reasonable investigation before dismissing, even if the employee has a live warning.
- Employees should be aware that shouting at a colleague can be treated as serious misconduct, especially if there is a recent warning on file.
- If you have a grievance, it may be dealt with separately from the disciplinary process; the tribunal will focus on whether the dismissal was fair overall.
A pattern of behaviour leads to dismissal
This case shows how a live final warning can significantly affect the outcome of a later misconduct dismissal. The claimant, a production team member with two years' service, had received a final written warning in August 2020 for threatening behaviour towards a team leader. Just three months later, he shouted at a colleague, causing her to become upset and leave work. Bighams Ltd investigated, obtained witness statements, and dismissed him for misconduct, taking the warning into account.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that Bighams Ltd genuinely believed the claimant had committed the misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer, particularly given the recent final warning. The appeal process, where all witnesses were re-interviewed, was also deemed adequate.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that employers can rely on a final written warning when deciding to dismiss for a further act of misconduct, provided they conduct a proper investigation. For employees, it highlights the importance of adhering to behavioural standards, especially when under a warning. The claimant did succeed on the holiday pay claim, but the agreed sum of £648.96 was modest compared to the main claim. The tribunal's decision underscores that a fair process and a reasonable belief in misconduct can outweigh arguments about proportionality.
Similar cases
Dismissed for refusing to attend meetings: conduct dismissal upheld
A clerical officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after repeatedly refusing to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
Whistleblowing claim fails: conduct dismissal upheld for walking out of shift twice
A general assistant who walked out of his shift twice and claimed he was dismissed for whistleblowing has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the real reason was his conduct, not any protected disclosure.
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.
Border Force officer dismissed for misconduct while under a live final written warning: dismissal fair
A Border Force officer with three years' service was fairly dismissed after shouting at managers while under a live final written warning. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.