Team supervisor with 17 years' service dismissed for smoking on company property: unfair dismissal claim succeeds
A tribunal found that Wilko Ltd unfairly dismissed a long-serving team supervisor for smoking on company property, but reduced compensation by 50% due to her admitting the misconduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #smoking-policy
- #break-policy
- #back-door-log
- #contributory-conduct
- #long-service
- #menopausal-symptoms
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Team Supervisor from 22 August 2005 until summary dismissal on 25 April 2022.
- She admitted smoking on company property and failing to sign the back door log.
- The respondent's No Smoking policy listed smoking on premises as gross misconduct.
- The claimant had a clean disciplinary record and over 16 years' service.
- The store manager had agreed to flexible breaks due to menopausal symptoms, but this was not documented.
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively unfair but reduced compensation by 50% for contributory conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Wilko Ltd.
-
Listening group held
Mr Spence held a listening group at Barry store; allegations of bullying and favouritism against store manager emerged.
-
Investigation interviews
Miss John interviewed 15 team members; feedback included allegations of smoke breaks during working time.
-
CCTV review
Mr Barrell reviewed CCTV and reported smoking on company property on 18 and 19 March 2022.
-
Investigation invitation
Claimant invited to investigation meeting on 11 April 2022.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant admitted smoking on premises and not signing back door log; she said she had permission for flexible breaks.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Mrs Tambling chaired the hearing; claimant did not deny allegations.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (smoking, break abuse, back door log failure).
-
Appeal investigation
Mr Barnes interviewed former managers and assistant manager; claimant did not attend.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal not upheld; Mr Barnes concluded smoking on premises was gross misconduct.
-
Tribunal hearing
Substantive hearing by video; evidence heard from both sides.
-
Judgment issued
Unfair dismissal claim succeeded; wrongful dismissal claim dismissed; 50% contributory reduction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for gross misconduct (smoking on premises, break abuse, and failing to sign the back door log) and whether the employee contributed to her dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim.
The key reason was that while the employer genuinely believed the misconduct occurred and had reasonable grounds, the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses given the employee's 17 years of service and clean disciplinary record. The employer should have considered a lesser sanction.
Compensation was reduced by 50% for contributory conduct because the employee admitted smoking on company property and failing to sign the back door log. No compensation figures were awarded as the hearing was for liability only.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to more consideration before dismissal, even for admitted gross misconduct.
- Employers should document any informal agreements, such as flexible breaks for health reasons, to avoid disputes later.
- Admitting misconduct does not automatically make a dismissal fair; the employer must still consider all circumstances.
- A 50% reduction for contributory conduct is common when the employee's actions clearly contributed to the dismissal.
A case of smoking, long service, and procedural fairness
This case shows how even admitted misconduct can lead to an unfair dismissal finding when an employer fails to properly weigh an employee's long service and clean record. The claimant, a team supervisor with 17 years' service, was summarily dismissed after she admitted smoking on company property and failing to sign the back door log. She also faced allegations of break abuse, though she claimed the store manager had agreed to flexible breaks due to her menopausal symptoms.
Wilko Ltd's policies listed smoking on premises as gross misconduct, and the employer argued that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. However, the tribunal found that the decision-maker did not give sufficient weight to the claimant's length of service and unblemished disciplinary history. A reasonable employer could have imposed a lesser sanction, such as a final written warning.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by properly considering the mitigating factors. The store manager's alleged agreement to flexible breaks, though undocumented, should have been investigated further. The appeal process also failed to address this point adequately. Employers dealing with similar cases should ensure that decision-makers explicitly consider an employee's service record and any explanations for the misconduct.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that gross misconduct policies are not automatic grounds for dismissal. Tribunals will examine whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances, including the employee's length of service and past conduct. For employees, it highlights the importance of documenting any informal arrangements with managers. For employers, it serves as a reminder that a one-size-fits-all approach to misconduct can be costly, especially when dealing with long-serving staff.
Similar cases
Mailman with 32 years' service unfairly dismissed over duplicate barcode incident
A mailman with 32 years of unblemished service was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail after a customer complaint about a duplicate barcode. The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed, and reduced compensation by 20% for his own conduct.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
Reinstatement ordered but ignored: railway employee awarded over £78,000
A tribunal ordered a railway company to reinstate a 20-year employee after unfair dismissal. When the company failed to comply, it was ordered to pay over £78,000 in compensation.
Security officer dismissed by email without hearing: unfair but 100% contributory conduct
A tribunal found that a security officer with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being sacked by email without any disciplinary hearing, but reduced her compensation to zero because her own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal.