Office manager with 14 years' service unfairly dismissed over stock ordering dispute
An office manager who stopped placing stock orders due to cash flow concerns was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal found the employer had already decided to dismiss before the hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #office-manager
- #stock-ordering
- #pandemic-impact
- #poor-communication
- #flawed-investigation
- #no-polkey-reduction
- #no-contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent from 2007 until dismissal in 2021, becoming office manager in 2018.
- The claimant did not place stock orders between April and May 2021 due to concerns about the company's cash flow.
- The respondent suspended the claimant on 26 May 2021 without prior discussion and cleared her desk.
- The disciplinary process was influenced by director Karen McGregor, who had already decided to dismiss the claimant.
- The tribunal found the respondent did not honestly believe in the misconduct and the dismissal was unfair.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Mrs Y Wright began working for Deltec Industries as an office administrator.
-
Promotion to office manager
The claimant was asked to take over operational responsibilities from director Karen McGregor and was given a new employment contract.
-
First COVID-19 lockdown
The respondent's operations stopped; employees were furloughed. The claimant continued limited work as a contact point.
-
End of second lockdown
The respondent resumed operations. The claimant did not place stock orders from this date until her suspension.
-
Suspension
The claimant was called to a 'catch-up' meeting, handed a suspension letter and a list of 15 allegations, and found her desk cleared.
-
First disciplinary hearing
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing with reduced, vague allegations. The meeting was recorded.
-
Second disciplinary hearing
Thomas France, partner of Karen McGregor, chaired the hearing. The claimant was dismissed for reasons including failure to order stock and alleged dishonesty.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed without notice. She did not appeal.
-
Tribunal hearing (day 1)
The employment tribunal hearing began, hearing evidence from the respondent's witnesses.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Leach found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed. No Polkey or contributory conduct reduction was applied.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was fair, and whether compensation should be reduced because the claimant contributed to her dismissal or would have been dismissed anyway.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed.
Key reasons:
- The director, Karen McGregor, had already decided to dismiss before the disciplinary hearing.
- The disciplinary process was flawed: the claimant was suspended without prior discussion, her desk was cleared, and the allegations were vague and reduced.
- The respondent did not honestly believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct.
No reduction was made for contributory conduct or under Polkey principles, meaning the claimant is entitled to full compensation (to be determined separately).
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not predetermine the outcome of a disciplinary process; a fair investigation and open mind are essential.
- Suspending an employee without prior discussion and clearing their desk can indicate bias and undermine the process.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough and fair procedure; any deviation from this can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
- If an employer fails to honestly believe in the misconduct, the dismissal will be unfair regardless of the employee's actions.
A breakdown in trust
This case highlights how a breakdown in communication can spiral into an unfair dismissal. The office manager, who had worked for Deltec Industries for 14 years, stopped placing stock orders in 2021 because she was worried about the company's cash flow. Instead of discussing her concerns, the employer suspended her without warning, cleared her desk, and handed her a list of 15 allegations.
A flawed process
The tribunal found that the disciplinary process was tainted from the start. Director Karen McGregor had already decided to dismiss the claimant before the hearing took place. The allegations were vague and were reduced at the last minute, leaving the claimant unable to prepare a proper defence. The tribunal concluded that the employer did not genuinely believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by having an open conversation with the claimant about the missing stock orders. A fair investigation, with an open mind, would have revealed her legitimate concerns about cash flow. Instead, the employer's rush to judgment led to a finding of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, with no reduction in compensation.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in difficult circumstances, such as the pandemic, employers must follow a fair process. Long-serving employees are entitled to a proper investigation and a genuine belief in the misconduct before dismissal. Any hint of predetermination can be fatal to the employer's case.
Similar cases
Support worker ambushed at disciplinary hearing: dismissal unfair due to inadequate investigation
A support worker was unfairly dismissed after a disciplinary hearing described as an 'ambush' with vague allegations. The tribunal awarded £9,111.12 in compensation.
Three long-serving fitters unfairly dismissed after flawed overtime investigation
Three skilled maintenance fitters with up to 25 years' service were unfairly dismissed by Vauxhall Motors after a flawed investigation into an anonymous letter about overtime. The tribunal rejected claims of whistleblowing or union-related automatic unfair dismissal.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
Course leader dismissed after 23 years: flawed investigation leads to £53k award
A tribunal found that New City College unfairly dismissed a course leader with 23 years' service after a flawed investigation into misconduct during the pandemic. The claimant was awarded £53,256.95 including a 20% ACAS uplift.