Improvised lift using forklift and crane: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A Rebuild Repair Engineer was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after improvising a complex lift without proper equipment or training, breaching the company's Lifesaving Rules. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety
- #improvised-lift
- #gross-misconduct
- #overhead-crane
- #lifesaving-rules
Key facts
- On 29 June 2022, the claimant and a colleague improvised a complex lift using a forklift and overhead crane without proper equipment or training.
- The claimant admitted to breaching the respondent's Lifesaving Rules and Global Standards for Lifting.
- The claimant did not revisit the pre-task assessment or create a revised lifting plan.
- The claimant operated an overhead crane without the respondent's training or licence.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the process fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Customer Service Controller.
-
Role change
Claimant became Rebuild Repair Engineer.
-
Task assigned
Claimant and colleague Mr Buck assigned to replace front axle on CAT 990 Wheel Loader.
-
Improvised lift
Claimant and Mr Buck performed a complex lift using forklift and overhead crane without proper equipment or training.
-
Health and safety investigation
Initial investigation chaired by Lisa Craddock; claimant admitted to improvising and lacking training.
-
Further investigation
Claimant attended investigatory meeting chaired by Mr Sanderson; admitted failure to revisit pre-task assessment.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing chaired by Kathryn Palmer; claimant admitted to breaches and was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant summarily dismissed with effect from 2 August 2022.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mark Brealey via Teams.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision to uphold dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, i.e., whether it fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that Finning (UK) Limited had a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct based on a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
Key reasons:
- The claimant admitted to breaching the Lifesaving Rules and Global Standards for Lifting.
- He failed to revisit the pre-task assessment or create a revised lifting plan.
- He operated an overhead crane without training or licence.
- The disciplinary and appeal processes were fair.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Health and safety breaches, especially those involving 'lifesaving rules', can justify summary dismissal even for a first offence.
- Admitting to a serious breach during investigation can strengthen the employer's case for gross misconduct.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary processes are thorough and appeals are considered; this helps defend against unfair dismissal claims.
- Employees with short service (here, 3 years) have less protection; tribunals give more leeway to employers in such cases.
When improvisation becomes gross misconduct
This case shows how seriously tribunals take health and safety breaches, particularly where an employer has clear 'Lifesaving Rules' in place. The claimant, a Rebuild Repair Engineer with three years' service, was dismissed after he and a colleague used a forklift and an overhead crane to lift a heavy component without proper equipment, training, or a revised lifting plan. He admitted to improvising and to operating the crane without a licence.
What the employer did right
Finning (UK) Limited conducted a thorough investigation, held a fair disciplinary hearing, and considered an appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer's policies made clear that a serious breach of health and safety rules could amount to gross misconduct. The claimant had received training on the Lifesaving Rules, which explicitly state that 'any level of improvisation is not acceptable.' Given the gravity of the breach, dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that admitting to a serious safety breach can make it very difficult to argue unfair dismissal. For employers, it reinforces the importance of having clear, well-communicated safety rules and following a fair procedure. The outcome might have been different if the employer had acted inconsistently or if the breach was less serious, but here the tribunal had little sympathy for the claimant's actions.
Similar cases
Shift manager dismissed for lone working and asking staff to stay after clocking out
A Lidl shift manager who admitted lone working and asking colleagues to remain in store after clocking out was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled.
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Trainer dismissed for failing to conduct practical assessment: a fair conduct dismissal
A manual handling equipment trainer with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to carry out practical assessments for two returning employees. The tribunal upheld DHL's decision.
Assistant store manager dismissed for manipulating time-recording system: dismissal fair
An assistant store manager who allowed a colleague to work without clocking in and later falsified time records was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claim that lack of training excused the manipulation of the Kronos system.