Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #procedural-unfairness
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #password-security
- #order-deletion
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were fundamentally flawed.
- The investigating manager was not sufficiently independent.
- Key evidence was not disclosed to the claimant.
- The claimant would likely have been dismissed fairly if a fair process had been followed.
- The claimant failed to keep his password confidential and deleted orders without checking procedures.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct.
-
Liability hearing
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal awarded £5,552.24 net after Polkey and contributory deductions.
The legal issue
Whether the employer's investigation and disciplinary process for alleged gross misconduct (password sharing and unauthorised order deletion) was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and what compensation should be awarded given the claimant's own fault and the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Stapletons (Tyre Services) Limited unfairly dismissed the manager because the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The investigating manager was not sufficiently independent, key evidence was not disclosed, and not all appeal grounds were addressed.
However, the tribunal also found that the manager had contributed to his own dismissal by failing to keep his password confidential and deleting orders without checking procedures. It applied a 60% Polkey reduction (chance he would have been dismissed anyway) and a 20% contributory fault reduction.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,096.32
- Loss of earnings: £121.30
- Notice pay: £3,790.62
- Compensatory award: £544.00
- Total net award: £5,552.24
Lessons & takeaways
- A flawed investigation – such as a non-independent investigator or withheld evidence – can make even a genuine misconduct dismissal unfair.
- Employees should take password security seriously; tribunals expect basic awareness of confidentiality even without formal training.
- If you would have been dismissed anyway under a fair process, your compensation may be substantially reduced (Polkey reduction).
- Contributory conduct – like failing to follow procedures – can further reduce your award, even if the dismissal was unfair.
What this case shows in practice
A manager with six years' service was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct involving password sharing and unauthorised deletion of customer orders. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the investigation lacked independence – the investigating manager was not sufficiently separate from the process – and key evidence was not shared with the employee. Appeal grounds were also inadequately addressed.
What the employer could have done differently
Stapletons could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by ensuring the investigator was independent, disclosing all relevant evidence, and properly considering the employee's appeal. A fair process might still have led to dismissal, but with notice rather than summary dismissal, and the compensation would have reflected that.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness is not optional. Even where an employee has clearly contributed to the situation – here by failing to keep his password secure and deleting orders without checking – the employer must still follow a fair process. The 60% Polkey reduction and 20% contributory fault deduction show that compensation can be heavily reduced, but a procedurally unfair dismissal still attracts a remedy.
Similar cases
22-year worker dismissed for unauthorised sales: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A security and maintenance worker with 22 years' service was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because he would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to his own dismissal.
Analyst dismissed for comments during cultural awareness training: procedural flaws led to unfair dismissal
A Grade 5 analyst at the National Crime Agency was unfairly dismissed after making allegedly racist comments during a training event. The tribunal found the process was flawed by an initial promise of informal resolution and a 16-month delay, but reduced compensation due to her own conduct.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.