Fitter dismissed after unsafe vehicle inspection: gross misconduct upheld
A fitter/mechanic with only five months' service was summarily dismissed for declaring a fuel trailer roadworthy when it was not. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding his actions amounted to gross misconduct.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #summary-dismissal
- #health-and-safety
- #vehicle-maintenance
- #short-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a fitter/mechanic from 19 October 2020 to 11 March 2021.
- On 11 March 2021, the claimant was asked to inspect a fuel trailer and tractor unit.
- The respondent alleged the claimant failed to complete paperwork and declared the vehicle roadworthy when it was not.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the claimant's actions amounted to gross misconduct and the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a fitter/mechanic with Star Multifuels.
-
Incident and dismissal
Claimant was asked to inspect a vehicle; a dispute arose and he was summarily dismissed by the directors.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Claimant received a letter confirming summary dismissal.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant presented a claim for wrongful dismissal and failure to provide written terms.
-
Tribunal hearing
The employment tribunal heard the case by video in Cardiff.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the fitter's actions on the day of his dismissal—failing to properly inspect and document a fuel trailer—constituted gross misconduct, and whether the employer was entitled to dismiss him without notice.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the fitter's claim for wrongful dismissal.
- The tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the fitter had not completed the required paperwork and had declared the vehicle roadworthy when it was not, creating a serious health and safety risk.
- The fitter had only five months' service, so he could not bring an unfair dismissal claim; the case was limited to whether his actions justified summary dismissal without notice.
- The tribunal found that the fitter's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, and the employer was entitled to dismiss him without notice. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-service employees cannot claim unfair dismissal, but they can still bring a wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay if they were not guilty of gross misconduct.
- Employers should document warnings and ensure they are given before relying on them in a dismissal — the tribunal here accepted the employer's explanation for a missing warning date.
- Health and safety breaches, especially those that put others at risk, are likely to be treated as gross misconduct even for employees with short service.
- Employees should ensure they complete all required paperwork and follow procedures when inspecting vehicles to avoid allegations of negligence.
This case shows that even employees with very short service can be dismissed without notice if their actions amount to gross misconduct. The fitter had been employed for only five months when he was asked to inspect a 32,000-litre fuel trailer. The employer alleged he failed to complete the necessary paperwork and declared the vehicle roadworthy when it was not, creating a serious safety risk.
The tribunal heard that the fitter had been involved in earlier incidents, including leaving flammable materials around the workshop and driving a vehicle with dangerously low brakes. Although the fitter disputed receiving formal warnings, the employer's directors gave evidence that they had raised these issues with him. The tribunal accepted the employer's account, noting that the fitter's conduct on the day of dismissal was the final straw.
What the employer did right
Star Multifuels acted swiftly to remove the fitter from the workplace after discovering the alleged safety breach. The directors personally dismissed him on the spot, and followed up with a written letter confirming the reasons. The tribunal was satisfied that the fitter's actions were serious enough to justify summary dismissal, regardless of his short service.
What the employee could have done differently
The fitter could have ensured he completed all paperwork before declaring the vehicle roadworthy. He also could have appealed the dismissal, but he did not. Because he had less than two years' service, he could not claim unfair dismissal, so his only option was a wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay. The tribunal found that his gross misconduct meant he was not entitled to any notice pay.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that gross misconduct can override the usual notice period, even for new employees. Employers should ensure they have clear procedures and evidence when dismissing for gross misconduct, especially when relying on a pattern of behaviour. Employees should take all health and safety obligations seriously, as a single serious breach can end their employment without notice.
Similar cases
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Sales assistant with 7 months' service wins disability harassment claim after fit note ignored
A sales assistant who was dismissed for unauthorised absence the day after submitting a fit note for mixed anxiety and depressive disorder has won a disability harassment claim. The tribunal awarded £22,178.95.
Shift manager dismissed for lone working and asking staff to stay after clocking out
A Lidl shift manager who admitted lone working and asking colleagues to remain in store after clocking out was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled.
Long-serving postman dismissed for drink-driving: Royal Mail's decision upheld
A postman with 17 years' service was fairly dismissed after a member of the public reported him drinking alcohol from a can and driving away. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation and decision were reasonable.