Dismissed for using company fuel card on furlough: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A machine tool services engineer was unfairly dismissed after using a company fuel card during furlough, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because he would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #company-fuel-card
- #personal-use-of-vehicle
- #flexible-furlough
- #mental-health
- #acas-code
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-fault
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Machine Tool Services Engineer from 19 September 2011 until his summary dismissal on 19 March 2021.
- On 19 February 2021, while on flexible furlough, the claimant drove a company van 220 miles to collect free golf clubs and used the company fuel card to pay for £50 of fuel.
- At a welfare/investigation meeting on 10 March 2021, the claimant admitted using the fuel card and said twice that he hoped no one would notice.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing on 18 March 2021.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the claimant was not told the 10 March meeting was an investigation, but that he would have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been followed.
- The claimant's disability discrimination claim failed because he was not a disabled person at the relevant time.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a Machine Tool Services Engineer.
-
Flexible furlough began
Claimant was placed on flexible furlough due to COVID-19 downturn.
-
Third national lockdown
England entered a third national lockdown, restricting movement.
-
Claimant raised mental health concerns
Claimant told his line manager Mr Marshall he was anxious, not sleeping, and his mental health was affected.
-
Birmingham journey
Claimant drove company van 220 miles to collect free golf clubs and used company fuel card to pay for fuel.
-
Claimant spoke to colleague
Claimant called Luke Smith in tears, expressing struggles with furlough and isolation.
-
Mrs Lamb informed
Luke Smith told Mrs Lamb about the claimant's mental health struggles.
-
Welfare/investigation meeting
Meeting held where claimant admitted using fuel card and said he hoped no one would notice.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing chaired by Mr Marshall; claimant admitted misconduct but said he was not thinking clearly.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Miss Christian; claimant's mental health discussed.
-
Appeal outcome
Dismissal upheld; misuse of vehicle downgraded to final written warning but fuel card misuse upheld as gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair and whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for a disability. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded on procedural grounds, but the disability claim failed because the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer did not tell the claimant that a welfare meeting on 10 March 2021 was also an investigation meeting. However, the tribunal concluded that a fair procedure would have made no difference: the claimant would still have been dismissed for gross misconduct. Additionally, the claimant's own conduct contributed 100% to the dismissal.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £0 (100% contributory fault reduction)
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% Polkey reduction and 100% contributory fault)
- Total award: £0
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should clearly distinguish between welfare meetings and investigation meetings to avoid procedural unfairness.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation can be reduced to zero if the employee would have been fairly dismissed anyway (Polkey reduction) or if they contributed to their own dismissal.
- Using a company fuel card for personal journeys during furlough is likely to be treated as gross misconduct, especially if the employee admits hoping no one would notice.
- Mental health struggles may be relevant to mitigation but do not necessarily excuse deliberate misconduct.
A costly trip for free golf clubs
A machine tool services engineer with nine years' service was summarily dismissed after using his company fuel card to pay for petrol during a 220-mile round trip to collect free golf clubs while on flexible furlough. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but awarded no compensation, highlighting the limits of procedural protections when the underlying conduct is serious.
The employee admitted using the fuel card at a welfare meeting, saying he hoped no one would notice. The employer treated this as gross misconduct and dismissed him the next day. The tribunal criticised the employer for not making clear that the welfare meeting was also an investigation, which denied the employee the chance to prepare properly.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the procedural unfairness by clearly stating the purpose of the meeting and giving the employee advance notice that it was an investigation. However, the tribunal was clear that even with a fair process, the outcome would have been the same: dismissal for gross misconduct. The employee's own actions – using the fuel card for personal gain during furlough and admitting he hoped no one would notice – were so serious that no reasonable employer would have retained him.
Why the result matters
This case shows that procedural unfairness does not always lead to a payout. The tribunal applied the Polkey principle, reducing compensation by 100% because a fair procedure would not have changed the outcome. It also applied a 100% contributory fault reduction, meaning the employee was entirely responsible for his own dismissal. Employees considering similar claims should understand that even if they win on unfair dismissal, compensation may be wiped out if they would have been dismissed anyway or if their own conduct was a major factor.
The case also underscores the risks of using company property for personal benefit during furlough, when trust and confidence are especially important.
Similar cases
HGV driver dismissed for tachograph offences: unfair but no compensation due to contributory fault
A tribunal found that Port Traction Limited unfairly dismissed an HGV driver for exceeding driving hours, but reduced compensation to zero because the driver would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to his own dismissal.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Geography teacher dismissed after relationship breakdown: unfair dismissal and victimisation claim succeeds in part
A tribunal found that a geography teacher with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed by United Learning Trust after a breakdown in relationships, and that a headteacher victimised him by providing a negative reference. He was awarded £36,677.70.
Bus manager dismissed over strip dance video wins unfair dismissal claim
A bus operations manager was unfairly dismissed after recording a colleague dancing to 'The Stripper'. The employer conceded liability and was ordered to pay £52,190.47.