Unit manager dismissed for leaving petrol station unattended: dismissal upheld
A Waitrose unit manager with 18 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after leaving a petrol filling station without a duty manager or keyholder present. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #misconduct
- #health-and-safety
- #petrol-station
- #duty-manager
- #keyholder
- #comparator
- #mitigation
Key facts
- The claimant was a Unit Manager at a Waitrose petrol filling station.
- On 31 March 2021, he left the unit without a Duty Manager or Keyholder present.
- The claimant admitted leaving the unit without the required cover.
- The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct.
- The claimant's brother's ill health was considered as mitigation but not accepted as a reason to deviate from policy.
- Comparators were distinguished because one returned to correct the issue promptly.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with John Lewis Plc.
-
Incident occurred
Claimant left the unit without a Duty Manager or Keyholder present, leaving two untrained employees in charge.
-
Investigation commenced
Investigation started following a Record of Concern filed against the claimant.
-
Investigatory interview
Claimant interviewed; he admitted leaving the unit without required cover and cited brother's health as mitigation.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for alleged serious misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Held by Mark Wiley; claimant did not deny leaving unit without cover.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct with effect from 27 August 2021.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing held with Nigel Towse.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal outcome letter dated 4 October 2021 upheld dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996, and whether the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice for breach of contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims.
- The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation.
- The claimant admitted leaving the unit without the required cover, and his mitigation (brother's ill health) did not justify departing from policy.
- Comparators were distinguished because one returned to correct the issue promptly.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Health and safety rules in high-risk environments like petrol stations are taken very seriously – even a single breach can justify dismissal.
- Length of service does not automatically protect you if you admit to a clear policy breach.
- Mitigating circumstances, such as family illness, may not outweigh the need to follow safety procedures.
- Comparators are only relevant if they are in truly similar circumstances – returning to correct an error makes a difference.
A clear breach of safety rules
This case shows that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for a single, admitted breach of a critical safety policy. The claimant, a unit manager with 18 years' service, left a Waitrose petrol station without a duty manager or keyholder present, leaving two untrained staff in charge. He admitted the breach but argued his brother's ill health was a mitigating factor.
What the employer did right
John Lewis carried out a thorough investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered the claimant's mitigation and comparators. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision was within the 'range of reasonable responses' – the legal test for fairness. The key factor was the serious health and safety risk: petrol stations are high-risk environments, and the policy requiring a keyholder at all times was there for good reason.
Why comparators didn't help
The claimant pointed to two other employees who had committed similar breaches but were not dismissed. However, the tribunal accepted that one comparator had returned to correct the error promptly, which made the situations different. This highlights that comparators are not always identical – the context matters.
What this means for similar claims
Employees in safety-critical roles should be aware that policy breaches can lead to dismissal even with long service and mitigation. Employers, meanwhile, should ensure they follow a fair process and consider all circumstances – but if the breach is clear and serious, dismissal is likely to be upheld.
Similar cases
Branch manager dismissed for using 'dump codes' to bypass asset tracking system
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a branch manager who used 'dump codes' to circumvent the company's asset tracking system, rejecting his claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Retire-and-return scheme leads to constructive dismissal claim, but breach of contract and age discrimination claims struck out
A consultant clinical scientist with 23 years' service resigned after a 'retire and return' scheme reduced her role. The tribunal struck out her breach of contract and age discrimination claims, but allowed her unfair dismissal claim to proceed.