Funeral director dismissed over jewellery removal: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal

What this case shows in practice

A funeral director with 30 years of unblemished service was dismissed after removing a deceased person's jewellery contrary to the family's wishes. He admitted he did not fully follow the employer's Jewellery and Personal Effects Procedure. However, the tribunal found that Dignity Funerals Ltd's disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed. The claimant was not given copies of key documents during the investigatory or disciplinary hearings, and the employer did not properly consider whether a lesser sanction, such as a final written warning, would have been appropriate given his long service and clean record.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by providing the claimant with all relevant documents before the hearings, allowing him a fair opportunity to respond. It should also have considered the claimant's length of service, his admission of fault, and whether dismissal was proportionate. The tribunal noted that the employer's failure to follow its own procedures and the ACAS Code contributed to the procedural unfairness.

Why the result matters

This case reinforces that even in sensitive roles like funeral directing, where trust is paramount, employers must follow fair procedures. The 40% reduction for contributory fault reflects that the claimant's own conduct contributed to the dismissal, but the procedural failings meant the dismissal was still unfair. The 15% ACAS uplift for unreasonable failure to follow the Code highlights the importance of procedural fairness. For employees, this case shows that a long, clean service record can be a powerful factor in arguing for a lesser sanction.