Quality inspector dismissed for using micrometer against instructions: misconduct dismissal upheld
A quality inspector with six years' service was fairly dismissed after using a micrometer to measure dies, despite a final warning for non-compliance. The tribunal found the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #misconduct
- #work-instructions
- #micrometer-use
- #final-warning
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Quality Inspector from 2 June 2015 until dismissal on 23 February 2021.
- On 10 February 2021, the claimant recorded 25 dies as out of specification using a micrometer, contrary to work instructions.
- The respondent investigated and found the claimant had been told previously not to use a micrometer for standard dies.
- The claimant had a final written warning from December 2020 for non-compliance with procedures.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct, and the appeal upheld the decision.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work as a General Operator at I Holland Limited.
-
First written warning
Claimant received a first written warning for breach of Covid-19 risk assessment.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received a final written warning for further Covid-19 breach and using personal mobile phone/headset during work.
-
Appeal of final warning dismissed
Appeal hearing chaired by Mr Chatwin upheld the final written warning.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance against shift manager Mr Cox, which was not upheld.
-
Incident leading to dismissal
Claimant measured 25 dies with a micrometer, reporting them out of specification; manager found them within spec.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation with Mr Coles; she stated she was told it was okay to use micrometer.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Pullen; claimant dismissed with immediate effect for misconduct.
-
Appeal submitted
Claimant appealed by email, declining an oral hearing.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Raposo upheld the dismissal after considering written submissions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was a fair outcome in all the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct, and that the employer acted reasonably. The investigation was adequate, the disciplinary hearing was fair, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, especially given the claimant's final written warning for similar non-compliance. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees on final written warnings are at high risk of dismissal for any further misconduct, even if the new incident seems minor.
- Employers should ensure work instructions are clear and consistently enforced, especially where deviation could affect product quality.
- A reasonable investigation does not have to be perfect; it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.
- Tribunals will not substitute their own view for the employer's decision if it falls within the range of reasonable responses.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a combination of a recent final warning and a failure to follow work instructions can make a misconduct dismissal fair, even when the employee has six years' service. The quality inspector had been told not to use a micrometer for standard dies, but did so anyway, reporting 25 dies as out of specification. The employer investigated, found the instruction had been given, and dismissed her. The tribunal accepted that the employer genuinely believed she had committed misconduct and that the investigation was reasonable.
What the employer did right
I Holland Limited followed a structured process: investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. The disciplinary officer considered the claimant's explanation but preferred the evidence of the manager who gave the instruction. The appeal officer reviewed the case independently. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses, particularly because the claimant was on a final written warning for similar non-compliance with procedures.
Why the result matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a final written warning significantly raises the stakes. Even a single further breach can justify dismissal if the employer has a reasonable belief in the misconduct. For employers, it shows that a fair process—investigation, hearing, appeal—combined with clear instructions and consistent enforcement, can successfully defend a misconduct dismissal. The tribunal will not second-guess the employer's decision if it was reasonable, even if the tribunal might have decided differently.
Similar cases
Dismissed after final written warning: pattern of misconduct justified
A development engineer with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after a final written warning and further complaints about his behaviour. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
Senior salesperson dismissed for 'race card' comment and conduct towards child customers
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a senior salesperson with 9 years' service after he made a 'race card' comment to street wardens and acted intimidatorily towards two schoolboys in the store.
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.
Dismissed for crashing a van and trying to hide it – protected disclosures did not save him
A depot technician with 12 years' service was dismissed after reversing a work van into a tree and attempting to repair the damage himself. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding it was for misconduct, not because of his protected disclosures.