Dismissed for causing injury to colleague: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A commercial bodywork engineer who removed a piece of GRP without checking his surroundings, causing a colleague to suffer a fractured orbital bone, was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety-breach
- #gross-misconduct
- #disciplinary-procedure
- #failure-to-participate
- #appeal-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Commercial Bodywork Engineer from 23 April 2019 to 10 October 2022.
- On 29 September 2022, the claimant removed a piece of GRP without checking his surroundings, causing it to hit a colleague and fracture his orbital bone.
- The respondent investigated the incident, interviewing all three witnesses, and invited the claimant to a disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant attended the disciplinary hearing but refused to participate after being denied permission to record the meeting and his companion was late.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, and the appeal was upheld.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair, as the respondent had reasonable grounds and followed a fair procedure.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Commercial Bodywork Engineer for Solomon Commercials Ltd.
-
Letter regarding disagreements
Respondent wrote to claimant about disagreements with colleagues, expecting improvements in teamwork and following instructions.
-
Incident causing injury
Claimant removed GRP without checking surroundings, causing it to hit colleague Jordan Jacques, fracturing his orbital bone.
-
Investigation started
Respondent's HR advisor Sian Booth began investigating the incident, interviewing the three witnesses and the claimant.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing on 10 October 2022 for causing serious harm, failure to follow health and safety, and unprofessional conduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Claimant attended but refused to participate after venue change and denial of recording; respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant's appeal heard by Kieran Taylor; claimant was accompanied by Paul Starkie.
-
Appeal dismissed
Respondent upheld the dismissal decision.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant began ACAS early conciliation process.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented unfair dismissal claim to the tribunal.
-
Tribunal hearing
Hybrid hearing before Employment Judge Greer at Manchester.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding dismissal fair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct. This involved assessing whether the employer had reasonable grounds for its belief, carried out a reasonable investigation, followed a fair procedure, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the dismissal was fair.
The key reasons were:
- The employer had reasonable grounds for its belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct by causing serious harm to a colleague through a health and safety breach.
- The investigation was reasonable: all three witnesses were interviewed, and the claimant was given an opportunity to respond.
- The disciplinary procedure was fair, even though the claimant refused to participate after being denied permission to record the meeting and his companion was late.
- The appeal was properly conducted and upheld the dismissal.
- Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a serious health and safety breach resulting in injury.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure they have reasonable grounds for belief in misconduct, carry out a reasonable investigation, and follow a fair procedure to defend a dismissal.
- Refusing to participate in a disciplinary hearing because of minor procedural disagreements (like recording or companion timing) does not automatically make the dismissal unfair.
- Serious health and safety breaches that cause injury to others are likely to be treated as gross misconduct, even if the employee has no prior similar incidents.
- A fair appeal process can strengthen the employer's position, especially if the appeal decision is thorough and considers the employee's concerns.
This case shows how tribunals assess fairness in gross misconduct dismissals, particularly where health and safety breaches cause injury. The claimant, a Commercial Bodywork Engineer with three years' service, removed a piece of GRP without checking his surroundings, causing it to hit a colleague and fracture his orbital bone. The employer investigated, interviewed witnesses, and dismissed him for gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
The employer had a clear policy listing serious breaches of health and safety as gross misconduct. It investigated promptly, interviewing all three witnesses and the claimant. The disciplinary hearing was convened, and although the claimant refused to participate after being denied permission to record and his companion was late, the employer proceeded based on the evidence. The appeal was heard by a different manager, who upheld the dismissal after considering the claimant's concerns.
The tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably: it had reasonable grounds for its belief, carried out a reasonable investigation, and followed a fair procedure. The claimant's refusal to participate did not make the process unfair, as he was given a full opportunity to be heard.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant could have participated in the disciplinary hearing despite the venue change and the denial of recording. By walking out, he lost the chance to present his side. He could also have raised his concerns through the appeal, which he did, but the appeal decision was reasonable.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that employers can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct when they follow proper procedures, even if the employee refuses to engage. It also highlights that health and safety breaches causing injury are likely to be treated seriously, and that a fair appeal process can protect the employer's decision.
Similar cases
Studio manager dismissed for issuing free sunbed sessions: employer's investigation held to be reasonable
A tribunal has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a studio manager with nine years' service who was sacked for gross misconduct after repeatedly giving free sunbed sessions without authorisation. The employer's investigation and decision were found to be within the range of reasonable responses.
Healthcare consultant dismissed for gross misconduct after customer complaints: race discrimination claims rejected
A healthcare consultant with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following four customer complaints about his attitude. The tribunal also rejected his claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
Production operative dismissed after false harassment claim and health and safety breach
A production operative who reported sexual harassment but was later dismissed for gross misconduct after leaving work early without clocking out has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably.
Paramedic with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds decision
A London Ambulance Service paramedic who was dismissed for bullying colleagues after failing a mask fit test has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was thorough and the decision reasonable.