Fuel depot operator dismissed for unauthorised IT access: misconduct dismissal upheld
A former fuel depot operator who repeatedly accessed his employer's IT system after being told not to has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #it-security-breach
- #unauthorised-access
- #protected-disclosure
- #race-discrimination
- #security-clearance
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a fuel depot operator and later promoted to Fuel Supervisor.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about a manager's alleged breach of mobile phone safety rules.
- The claimant's security clearance was suspended after concerns about his behaviour were reported to the MoD.
- Despite being told not to access the respondent's IT system, the claimant repeatedly gained unauthorised access and forwarded emails.
- The claimant was found to have accessed and forwarded a colleague's P60 without authorisation.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a full investigation and disciplinary hearing.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Mr Konosokos commenced employment as a Temporary Operator at the Thanckes depot.
-
Promotion to Fuel Supervisor
The claimant was appointed as Fuel Supervisor after a successful interview.
-
Potential safety incident
A strong smell of diesel was reported; the claimant was on duty and later alleged he was unfairly criticised.
-
Claimant raised formal grievance
The claimant complained about being threatened with disciplinary action by managers.
-
First Aftercare Incident Report (AIR) submitted
The respondent reported concerns about the claimant's change in personality and behaviour to the MoD.
-
Security clearance suspended
The MoD suspended the claimant's security clearance; he was sent home on full pay and told not to access IT systems.
-
First protected disclosure
The claimant emailed HR alleging a manager had breached mobile phone safety rules since 2013.
-
Second AIR submitted
The respondent reported further concerns, including the claimant's alleged IT breaches and dealings with a former employee.
-
Claimant suspended pending disciplinary investigation
The respondent suspended the claimant after discovering repeated unauthorised IT access.
-
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct
After a disciplinary hearing, the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, including IT breaches and dishonesty.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair, whether it was automatically unfair because of protected disclosures, whether the claimant suffered detriment for making disclosures, and whether he was directly discriminated against because of his Latvian nationality.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims.
- The dismissal for gross misconduct was fair: the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (unauthorised IT access and forwarding a colleague's P60), following a reasonable investigation and a fair disciplinary process.
- The protected disclosure claims failed because the disclosures were not the reason for any detriment or dismissal; the respondent's actions were motivated by genuine security concerns.
- The race discrimination claim failed because the claimant did not establish a prima facie case of less favourable treatment on grounds of nationality.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your employer explicitly tells you not to access their IT systems, follow that instruction — even if you believe you have a good reason.
- Making a protected disclosure does not give you immunity from disciplinary action for unrelated misconduct.
- Employers in security-sensitive roles are entitled to take a strict approach to IT breaches, especially where security clearance is at stake.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible, but having legal representation can help you navigate complex legal issues like protected disclosures and discrimination.
When a security breach costs you your job
This case shows how seriously employers in security-sensitive industries take unauthorised IT access. The claimant, a fuel depot operator with two years' service, was dismissed after repeatedly logging into his employer's computer system despite being told not to — and forwarding a colleague's confidential P60 form.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent, The Oil and Pipelines Agency, had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct. The investigation was thorough, the disciplinary hearing was fair, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. The fact that the claimant had made protected disclosures about a manager's safety breach did not change the outcome — the tribunal found those disclosures were not the reason for his dismissal.
What the employer did right
The respondent followed its own procedures carefully. When concerns about the claimant's behaviour were raised, it reported them to the Ministry of Defence as required by security rules. It suspended the claimant on full pay, investigated the IT breaches, and gave him a chance to respond at a disciplinary hearing. For a tribunal, this process is often the difference between a fair and unfair dismissal.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who raise genuine concerns about safety or wrongdoing should not be penalised for doing so. But that protection does not extend to misconduct that is unrelated to the disclosure. If you are under investigation, follow all instructions — especially about IT access — and seek legal advice early. The claimant represented himself and struggled to prove that his disclosures motivated the employer's actions. Legal representation can make a significant difference in complex cases involving multiple legal claims.
Similar cases
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Consultant gynaecologists dismissed for victimisation: unfair process but no compensation
Two long-serving consultant gynaecologists were unfairly dismissed by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because they would have been dismissed anyway and were wholly at fault.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.