HGV driver fairly dismissed after refusing to return to work: conduct dismissal upheld
HGV driver fairly dismissed after refusing to return to work; race discrimination claims rejected
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-absence
- #gross-misconduct
- #race-discrimination
- #vehicle-allocation
- #ssp-error
- #holiday-request
Key facts
- The claimant was a Polish HGV driver employed by the respondent from 3 April 2018 until dismissal on 21 May 2021.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to return to work and failing to follow management instructions.
- The respondent conceded an unauthorised deduction of wages claim for £38.54, which was settled.
- The claimant alleged direct race discrimination on multiple grounds, but the tribunal found no less favourable treatment due to nationality.
- The claimant's race discrimination claims regarding events on 1 May 2020 and 11 February 2020 were out of time.
Timeline
-
Claimant re-employed
The claimant began his second period of employment with the respondent as a Class I HGV driver.
-
Double-booking incident
The respondent double-booked a casual British driver for the claimant's run. The claimant was given a paid holiday and £20 compensation.
-
JCB run
The claimant was assigned a run to JCB; he was delayed and parked up 25 minutes from depot, but was collected. No driving hours infringement.
-
Driving time concern
The claimant was concerned about exceeding driving time by one minute; the respondent reassured him. No penalty occurred.
-
Timekeeping criticism
A transport manager criticised the claimant's timekeeping and was instructed to monitor him. The claimant grieved and the complaint was upheld.
-
Claimant absent sick
The claimant was absent due to ill-health from 18 to 22 April 2021.
-
Claimant indicates no return
The claimant emailed the respondent stating he would not return to work.
-
Disciplinary hearing scheduled
The claimant failed to attend the first disciplinary hearing regarding unauthorised absence.
-
Disciplinary hearing in absence
The claimant did not attend the rescheduled disciplinary hearing; he was found guilty of gross misconduct and summarily dismissed.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The respondent sent the claimant a dismissal letter, advising of the right to appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct (failure to return to work) and whether the respondent directly discriminated against him on grounds of his Polish nationality.
The outcome
The tribunal held that the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation (including offering a disciplinary hearing which the claimant did not attend), and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
All race discrimination claims failed. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment compared to British drivers. Some claims were also out of time.
Compensation: None awarded. The respondent conceded an unauthorised deduction of wages claim for £38.54, which was settled between the parties.
Lessons & takeaways
- Telling your employer you will not return to work can be treated as gross misconduct, especially if you ignore management instructions to attend a disciplinary hearing.
- To succeed in a race discrimination claim, you need to show that you were treated less favourably than a comparator in similar circumstances — a general feeling of unfairness is not enough.
- Employment tribunal claims have strict time limits — most must be brought within three months of the act complained of. Late claims are unlikely to succeed.
- Representing yourself is possible, but having legal representation can help present evidence effectively, especially in complex discrimination cases.
When refusing to return to work becomes gross misconduct
This case shows that an employee who simply refuses to return to work — without a valid reason — can be fairly dismissed. The claimant, an HGV driver with three years' service, emailed his employer saying he would not come back. He then failed to attend two disciplinary hearings. The employer dismissed him for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably. It had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a proper investigation, and gave the claimant every opportunity to attend a hearing. The dismissal was within the range of responses a reasonable employer might take.
What the employer did right
The employer offered the claimant a disciplinary hearing, rescheduled it when he didn't attend, and then proceeded in his absence only after he failed to respond. They also sent a dismissal letter with appeal rights. This process helped the tribunal conclude that the dismissal was fair.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant alleged he was treated less favourably than British drivers in several ways, including vehicle allocation, holiday requests, and criticism. But the tribunal found no evidence that his Polish nationality was the reason. In some cases, the alleged incidents were too old to be considered. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's comparators were not in materially the same circumstances.
Key takeaway for employees
If you are unhappy at work, it is risky to simply stop attending or refuse to return. You should follow your employer's grievance procedure and, if necessary, seek legal advice. A conduct dismissal can be fair if the employer follows a reasonable process, even if you disagree with their decision.
Similar cases
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.
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
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.
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.