Dismissed for leaving site during a break: a failure to investigate common practice

What this case shows

This case illustrates how a seemingly straightforward disciplinary decision can unravel when an employer fails to properly investigate an employee's explanation. The claimant, a production operative with five years' service, was dismissed for leaving site without permission on two occasions in May 2019. The second occasion involved briefly visiting his car in the car park during a break to get sandwiches. The tribunal found that the employer, GI Group Recruitment Limited, did not adequately investigate the claimant's assertion that leaving site during breaks was common practice among staff. This failure meant the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer's procedural failings were significant. The dismissing officer, Mr Elmore, had previously been involved in the claimant's disciplinary appeal, which the tribunal said compromised his impartiality. A different, independent decision-maker could have avoided this issue. More importantly, the employer should have investigated the claimant's claim that the rule was routinely ignored. If it was common practice, then treating this as gross misconduct was disproportionate. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's earlier dismissal for a similar incident had been overturned on appeal to a final written warning, so the employer should have considered that context.

Why the result matters

This case is a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise both the procedure and the substance of a conduct dismissal. Even where an employer genuinely believes misconduct has occurred, failing to investigate a plausible explanation can render the dismissal unfair. For employees, it shows the importance of raising any relevant context — such as common practice — during the disciplinary process. The compensation of over £16,900 reflects the financial impact of an unfair dismissal on a worker with modest earnings. The claimant's race discrimination claims failed, highlighting that not every unfair treatment is linked to a protected characteristic.