32-year manager dismissed for selling £20 of Royal Mail PPE: dismissal fair
A manager with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after selling Royal Mail PPE worth £20 on a local website. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #theft
- #ppe
- #long-service
- #inconsistent-accounts
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after selling Royal Mail PPE worth approximately £20.
- The claimant admitted in an initial interview that he sold the PPE, but later denied selling any Royal Mail property.
- The respondent conducted a fair investigation and disciplinary process, including a fact-finding interview, formal conduct meeting, and appeal.
- The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of theft.
- Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the nature of the business and the claimant's managerial role.
Timeline
-
Claimant takes PPE from outhouse
The claimant took a bag of PPE from a Royal Mail outhouse and put it in his car boot, forgetting about it.
-
Report of PPE sale on NextDoor
Mr O'Dell received a report that Royal Mail PPE was being sold on the NextDoor website; the seller was identified as the claimant.
-
Interview with Mr O'Dell
The claimant was interviewed and admitted selling Royal Mail PPE for £22; he signed a notebook record of admissions.
-
Fact-finding interview
The claimant, represented by a union rep, admitted taking 8 packets of wipes and some sanitiser, but denied stealing.
-
Invitation to formal conduct meeting
The claimant was invited to a formal conduct meeting for gross misconduct (theft and sale of PPE).
-
Formal conduct meeting
The claimant denied selling Royal Mail items, claiming they were mixed with his own purchases; he provided a signed statement of remorse.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr Brady dismissed the claimant without notice for gross misconduct, citing inconsistent accounts and lack of honesty.
-
Appeal interview
The claimant attended an appeal rehearing with Ms Knight-Smith; his union rep stated his actions 'could be perceived as dishonest'.
-
Appeal upheld
Ms Knight-Smith upheld the dismissal, noting the claimant's lack of contrition and the seriousness of the conduct.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented his claim for unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's belief in the claimant's misconduct was genuine and based on a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal for theft of low-value items was within the range of reasonable responses for a manager with long service.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The respondent conducted a fair investigation, including a fact-finding interview, formal conduct meeting, and appeal.
- The claimant gave inconsistent accounts: initially admitting selling the PPE, then denying it.
- The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, given the nature of the business and the claimant's managerial role.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employee's conduct is dishonest and inconsistent.
- Admitting misconduct in an initial interview but later denying it can undermine credibility and support a fair dismissal.
- Employers should conduct a thorough investigation and give the employee a chance to respond, as Royal Mail did here.
- Theft of low-value items can still justify dismissal for gross misconduct, especially in a managerial role.
What this case shows
A manager with 32 years of service was dismissed for selling Royal Mail PPE worth around £20 on a local website. The tribunal found that Royal Mail's investigation and decision to dismiss were fair, despite the long service and relatively low value of the items.
The claimant initially admitted selling the PPE but later denied it, giving inconsistent accounts. The employer conducted a fact-finding interview, a formal conduct meeting, and an appeal, all of which supported the dismissal.
What the employer did right
Royal Mail had a clear process: they investigated promptly, gave the claimant a chance to respond with union representation, and considered his long service. The appeal rehearing also gave the claimant an opportunity to explain, but his lack of contrition and inconsistent stories led to the dismissal being upheld.
Why this matters
This case shows that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for dishonesty, even over small amounts. The key is that the employer has a genuine belief based on a reasonable investigation. Employees should be consistent in their accounts and show remorse if they want to avoid dismissal.
Similar cases
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Paramedic with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds decision
A London Ambulance Service paramedic who was dismissed for bullying colleagues after failing a mask fit test has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was thorough and the decision reasonable.
Milk theft on CCTV: dismissal upheld as fair despite inconsistent explanations
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a milk delivery driver who was caught on CCTV removing milk from customers' doorsteps. The respondent's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.