Forklift operator dismissed after CCTV contradicted his account of accident
A forklift truck operator was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after CCTV footage showed his account of a workplace accident was implausible. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #dishonesty
- #cctv-evidence
- #stop-call-wait-policy
- #flagrant-disregard-safety
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a forklift truck operator from 4 February 2019 until dismissal on 7 May 2021.
- On 20 April 2021, the claimant was involved in an accident where stillages fell onto a co-worker's forklift, causing damage.
- The claimant continued to move stillages after the accident, breaching the respondent's 'stop-call-wait' policy.
- The claimant gave an account of events that was contradicted by CCTV footage showing insufficient time for his version.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, citing flagrant disregard for safety, negligence, and dishonesty.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal, noting the claimant admitted moving stillages after the incident.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started his contract of employment as an Operator at the respondent's Hams Hall site.
-
Accident occurred
At 10:04 a.m., the claimant was involved in an accident where stillages fell onto a co-worker's forklift, causing damage. He continued moving stillages until 10:21 a.m., breaching the 'stop-call-wait' policy.
-
Initial investigation began
Team leader Florentina Anghel took a statement from the claimant at 10:35 a.m. Later, Warehouse Manager David Brennan was appointed investigating officer and interviewed the claimant, who was then suspended.
-
Witness interviews
Brennan interviewed co-worker Dewan Choudhury and three other forklift drivers. He also interviewed two lorry drivers on 22 April.
-
Further interviews
Brennan interviewed Florentina Anghel and re-interviewed two witnesses.
-
Gatehouse witness interviewed
Brennan interviewed Thomas Harvey, who was in the gatehouse at the time of the incident.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 5 May 2021, with allegations of flagrant disregard for safety, negligence, and dishonesty.
-
Disciplinary hearing (first part)
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing chaired by Maxime Vogel. He was shown CCTV stills and questioned about discrepancies. The hearing was adjourned.
-
Disciplinary hearing (concluded) and dismissal
The reconvened hearing took place. Vogel presented two possible versions of events, which the claimant rejected. Vogel concluded the claimant's account was not plausible and dismissed him for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal letter sent
The claimant received a letter confirming summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant emailed the respondent to appeal his dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing was chaired by Damian Lee. The claimant admitted moving stillages after the incident. Lee upheld the dismissal.
-
Appeal outcome letter
The claimant was informed that the appeal was unsuccessful and the decision was final.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's belief in the claimant's misconduct was genuinely held and based on reasonable grounds, whether the investigation was reasonable, and whether dismissal was a fair sanction. It also had to determine if the claimant's conduct justified summary dismissal without notice.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The employer's investigation was thorough: it interviewed multiple witnesses, reviewed CCTV footage, and gave the claimant opportunities to respond.
- The claimant's version of events was contradicted by CCTV evidence showing insufficient time for his account. The employer reasonably concluded he had been dishonest and had breached safety rules.
- The appeal process was fair, and the claimant admitted moving stillages after the accident, further undermining his credibility.
No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should conduct a thorough investigation, including reviewing CCTV and interviewing witnesses, before dismissing for misconduct.
- Employees should be honest during investigations; discrepancies between their account and objective evidence can undermine their credibility.
- A fair appeal process can help demonstrate that the employer acted reasonably overall.
- Breaching a clear safety policy like 'stop-call-wait' can be treated as gross misconduct, especially if combined with dishonesty.
When CCTV tells a different story
A forklift truck operator with two years' service was dismissed after an accident in which stillages fell onto a colleague's vehicle. The employer's policy required him to 'stop-call-wait' immediately, but he continued moving stillages for another 17 minutes. When questioned, he gave an account of events that CCTV footage later showed was impossible within the time available.
The employer investigated thoroughly, interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing the footage. At the disciplinary hearing, the operator was shown stills from the CCTV and asked to explain the discrepancies. He maintained his version, but the decision-maker concluded it was not plausible and dismissed him for gross misconduct, citing flagrant disregard for safety, negligence, and dishonesty. The appeal upheld the decision.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the employer genuinely believed the operator had committed misconduct. The investigation was reasonable — it was prompt, involved multiple witnesses, and the operator was given a fair opportunity to respond. The decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses, given the seriousness of the safety breach and the dishonesty. The claim for notice pay also failed because the operator's conduct justified summary dismissal.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that employers can rely on objective evidence like CCTV to challenge an employee's account, provided they conduct a fair process. For employees, it highlights the importance of honesty during investigations — once credibility is lost, it is difficult to rebuild. The outcome also reinforces that safety breaches, especially when combined with dishonesty, can amount to gross misconduct even for employees with relatively short service.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
Customer service assistant dismissed for attempted strike on teenager: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A customer service assistant who tried to strike a teenage customer with an open hand was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled. His race discrimination claims against third-party security guards were also dismissed.