Head of Estates unfairly dismissed over sale of disused oil tank
A head of estates with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed for selling a disused oil tank for £230. The tribunal found the investigation and appeal process were biased and procedurally flawed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sale-of-school-property
- #cctv-evidence
- #biased-investigation
- #procedural-unfairness
- #appeal-process-flawed
- #failure-to-check-safe
Key facts
- The claimant sold a disused oil tank belonging to the school for £230 without prior authorisation.
- The claimant placed the £230 in a safe and informed the respondent, but the respondent did not check the safe until after the appeal.
- The respondent's principal, Mr Anderson, conducted the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and influenced the appeal process.
- The appeal panel was provided with prejudicial information about the claimant's character by Mr Anderson.
- The claimant had 13 years of service and no previous formal disciplinary warnings.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment with the respondent.
-
Promotion to Head of Estates
Claimant promoted to Head of Estates, reporting directly to the Principal.
-
Sale of oil tank
Claimant sold a disused oil tank to a member of the public for £230 and placed the money in a safe.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into allegations of gross misconduct regarding the sale.
-
Dismissal
Following a disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Anderson, the claimant was dismissed for misconduct.
-
Appeal request
Claimant requested an appeal against dismissal.
-
First appeal hearing
First part of the appeal hearing before governors Mr Copeland and Mr Knightly.
-
Second appeal hearing
Second part of the appeal hearing; appeal was dismissed.
-
Claim lodged
Claimant lodged a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal with the Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Martin found the claimant was unfairly dismissed; remedy to be determined at a later hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the head of estates for misconduct (selling a disused oil tank without authorisation), considering the fairness of the investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were:
- The principal, Mr Anderson, conducted the investigation, chaired the disciplinary hearing, and influenced the appeal, creating bias.
- The appeal panel was provided with prejudicial information about the claimant's character by Mr Anderson.
- The respondent failed to check the safe where the claimant had placed the £230 until after the appeal, which could have corroborated his honesty.
- The claimant had 13 years of service and no previous disciplinary warnings, yet was dismissed for a single unauthorised sale.
Compensation will be determined at a later hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure that the person who investigates misconduct does not also chair the disciplinary hearing to avoid bias.
- Always check available evidence (e.g., a safe where money was placed) before making a final dismissal decision.
- Appeal panels should be provided only with relevant evidence and not prejudicial character information from the original decision-maker.
- Long-serving employees with clean records deserve a thorough and fair process before dismissal for a first misconduct issue.
A case of procedural shortcuts
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward misconduct dismissal can unravel when the employer cuts procedural corners. The head of estates, a 13-year employee, sold a disused oil tank for £230 without prior authorisation and placed the money in a safe. Instead of investigating fairly, the school's principal acted as investigator, disciplinary chair, and influencer of the appeal — a clear conflict of interest.
What went wrong
The employer could have avoided this outcome by separating the investigation and disciplinary roles. A different manager could have gathered evidence, including checking the safe (which the respondent did not do until after the appeal). The appeal panel was given prejudicial comments about the claimant's character by the principal, tainting the process. A fair appeal would have excluded such material and focused on the facts.
Why this matters
For employees, this case reinforces that even when misconduct occurs, a fair process is essential — especially for long-serving staff with clean records. For employers, it is a reminder that the band of reasonable responses requires not just a genuine belief in misconduct but a reasonable investigation and unbiased decision-making. Failing to follow basic fairness can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one, regardless of the underlying conduct.
Similar cases
Assistant principal dismissed for restraining a pupil: no training and a flawed process
An assistant principal with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed after physically restraining a disruptive student. The school had not provided positive handling training and failed to preserve full CCTV evidence.
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.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.