Postman and union rep dismissed for failing to follow vehicle safety procedure
A postman with 18 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to apply the HIT procedure, causing a vehicle to roll into a parked car. The tribunal upheld the dismissal as within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #health-and-safety
- #vehicle-roll-away
- #hit-procedure
- #union-representative
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a postman and health and safety/union representative from 23 June 2003 until dismissal on 9 June 2021.
- On 1 April 2021, the claimant parked a Royal Mail vehicle but failed to follow the HIT procedure (handbrake, in gear, wheels turned), causing the vehicle to roll and hit a parked car.
- The claimant admitted the misconduct and knew the HIT procedure, having supported training on it as a health and safety representative.
- The respondent investigated, held a disciplinary hearing, and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct without notice.
- The appeal panel upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the claimant's knowledge of the procedure justified the sanction.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Royal Mail as a postman.
-
SHE alert issued
Safety alert on vehicle roll-away reinforced mandatory HIT procedure (handbrake, in gear, turn wheels).
-
Incident occurred
Claimant parked vehicle without following HIT procedure; vehicle rolled and hit a parked car.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Fact-finding meeting
Claimant attended meeting with manager Warren Atkin; admitted failing to follow HIT procedure.
-
Conduct interview
Disciplinary hearing with Glenn Johnson; claimant confirmed knowledge of HIT procedure.
-
Dismissal decision
Claimant dismissed without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
Tribunal hearing day 1
Employment tribunal hearing held by video.
-
Tribunal hearing day 2
Second day of hearing; closing submissions.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Royal Mail acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct, specifically whether the investigation was reasonable and whether dismissal was a fair sanction.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant admitted failing to follow the mandatory HIT procedure (handbrake, in gear, turn wheels) when parking a vehicle, causing a roll-away incident.
- As a health and safety representative, the claimant knew the procedure and had supported training on it.
- The tribunal found that Royal Mail carried out a reasonable investigation and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically protect against dismissal for gross misconduct, especially where the employee knew the rules.
- Employees in health and safety roles are held to a higher standard of compliance with safety procedures.
- Admitting misconduct does not guarantee a lesser sanction if the employer can show the breach was deliberate or reckless.
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough and disciplinary hearings are fair, but minor procedural flaws may not make a dismissal unfair.
- Union representatives are not immune from disciplinary action for their own misconduct.
When knowing the rules works against you
This case shows how an employee's own expertise can become a double-edged sword. The claimant, a postman and union health and safety representative with 18 years' service, was dismissed after failing to apply the HIT procedure — handbrake on, in gear, turn wheels — when parking a Royal Mail van. The vehicle rolled and hit a parked car. He admitted the breach and knew the procedure well, having supported training on it as a safety rep.
What Royal Mail did right
Royal Mail investigated promptly, held a disciplinary hearing, and gave the claimant a chance to appeal. The appeal panel upheld dismissal by a majority. The tribunal noted that the claimant's knowledge of the HIT procedure and his role as a safety representative meant he should have known better. The employer's conduct policy listed deliberate disregard of safety procedures as gross misconduct. The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses — even for a long-serving employee.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who hold safety or union roles cannot rely on their position to escape accountability for safety breaches. Employers are entitled to treat such breaches seriously, especially when the employee has been trained and has supported the procedure. The case also reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own view of the appropriate sanction if the employer's decision was reasonable in the circumstances. For employees, it is a reminder that admitting a mistake does not always lead to a second chance — particularly when the mistake involves a known safety rule.
Similar cases
32-year field engineer dismissed for falsely reporting stolen gas detector
A field engineer with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after falsely reporting his gas detection unit stolen and failing to use it on four jobs. The tribunal upheld Openreach's decision.
Two long-serving managers dismissed for refusing to run a trial: conduct dismissal upheld
Two production managers with 34 and 42 years' service were fairly dismissed after refusing to manage a trial of Cumberland sausage rings. The tribunal rejected their claims of health and safety detriment and unfair dismissal.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.