HGV driver dismissed after heated route dispute: no disciplinary hearing meant unfair dismissal
An HGV driver who refused a route in anger and left work was unfairly dismissed when his employer treated it as resignation without a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but will apply significant reductions for his conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #heat-of-the-moment
- #refusal-to-obey-instruction
- #no-disciplinary-hearing
- #acas-code-breach
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed as an HGV driver from May 2020 until 20 December 2022.
- On 20 December 2022, the Claimant became angry about his afternoon route and refused to take it, saying he would go home.
- The Claimant's manager, Mr Brown, suggested he resign, and the Claimant left work after collecting his belongings.
- The Respondent treated the Claimant's actions as a resignation and later sent a dismissal letter for gross misconduct.
- The Respondent did not hold a disciplinary hearing or provide the Claimant with the evidence against him before dismissing him.
- The Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed, not resigned, and the dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The Claimant began working for the Respondent as an HGV driver.
-
Written warning issued
The Claimant received a written warning regarding vehicle checks and a cheque error, which expired on 8 August 2022.
-
First route dispute
The Claimant swore at Mr Garbutt about an unequal route. He later apologised and injured his ankle, taking 4 weeks off.
-
Second route dispute and dismissal
The Claimant argued with Mr Brown about his afternoon route, refused to take it, and left work after being told to resign. The Respondent treated this as a resignation and later sent a dismissal letter for gross misconduct.
-
Claimant contacted manager
The Claimant called Mr Garbutt to ask what would happen next. Mr Garbutt told him he would be dismissed.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Mr Lavasani wrote to the Claimant confirming dismissal for gross misconduct (insubordination and refusal to obey instructions).
-
Appeal letter sent
The Claimant, after obtaining legal advice, wrote an appeal letter raising four points.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal hearing was held where Mr Lavasani read out excerpts of incident reports but did not provide copies to the Claimant.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Lavasani upheld the dismissal decision.
-
Tribunal hearing
The liability hearing took place via video. The Tribunal reserved judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the driver resigned or was dismissed, and if dismissed, whether the employer acted reasonably in treating his refusal to obey an instruction as gross misconduct without following a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the HGV driver was dismissed, not resigned, and that the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to hold a disciplinary hearing or properly investigate before sending a dismissal letter for gross misconduct.
The key reasons were:
- The employer treated the driver's angry words and departure as a resignation without checking his true intention.
- No disciplinary hearing was held, and the driver was not given the evidence against him before dismissal.
- The appeal process did not cure the procedural failings.
Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing, but the tribunal indicated:
- An 80% Polkey reduction (chance of dismissal even with fair procedure).
- A 75% contributory fault reduction due to the driver's own conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should not assume an angry employee who leaves work has resigned – they must check intention and follow a fair disciplinary process.
- Even in cases of apparent gross misconduct, a failure to hold any disciplinary hearing before dismissal will almost certainly render the dismissal unfair.
- Employees who act in the heat of the moment and refuse instructions risk having their compensation significantly reduced for contributory conduct.
- An appeal that repeats the same procedural flaws (e.g., not sharing evidence) will not save an otherwise unfair dismissal.
This case shows how a workplace argument can spiral into an unfair dismissal when an employer jumps to conclusions and skips proper procedure. The HGV driver, with three years' service, became angry about his afternoon route and told his manager he would go home. The manager suggested he resign, and the driver left after collecting his belongings. The employer later treated this as a resignation and sent a dismissal letter for gross misconduct – without ever holding a disciplinary hearing.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the employer failed at every stage. It did not investigate whether the driver truly intended to resign, nor did it give him a chance to explain his actions before deciding to dismiss. The appeal hearing was also flawed: the managing director read out incident reports but did not provide copies to the driver. Under the ACAS Code of Practice, a fair procedure requires a proper hearing with the chance to respond to evidence – something that was entirely absent here.
What the employer could have done differently
A simple disciplinary hearing, even a short one, would have given the driver the opportunity to explain his side. The employer could then have considered whether his conduct amounted to gross misconduct or a lesser sanction. Instead, by treating his departure as a resignation and then issuing a dismissal letter without process, the employer guaranteed that any dismissal would be unfair.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that even if you act badly in the heat of the moment, your employer still owes you a fair process. For employers, it is a caution against shortcutting procedure – especially when the employee's conduct is serious. The tribunal indicated that the driver's compensation will be heavily reduced (80% for the chance he would have been dismissed anyway, and 75% for his own blameworthy conduct), but the finding of unfair dismissal stands.
Similar cases
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: unfair dismissal for lack of disciplinary hearing
A night care assistant with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after being seen asleep on duty, because her employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing before sacking her. The tribunal awarded £962.79, reduced by 75% for her contributory conduct.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
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.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.