14-year manager dismissed for taking lost bicycles: tribunal upholds misconduct decision
A Security Operations Manager with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed after taking two bicycles from lost property without permission. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #theft-of-bicycles
- #lost-property-procedure
- #seniority
- #comparator-not-materially-same
Key facts
- The claimant took two bicycles from his workplace on 25 August 2021 without permission.
- The bicycles had been in lost property for over a year.
- The claimant was dismissed on 18 November 2021 for misconduct.
- The claimant alleged he was treated less favourably than two white comparators, but the tribunal found their circumstances were materially different.
- The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process were fair and the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Mitie Limited.
-
Bicycle incident
The claimant took two bicycles from the respondent's premises without permission.
-
Return from absence and suspension
The claimant returned to work after a period of absence and was suspended by Paul Thompson.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held regarding the bicycle incident.
-
Second investigation meeting
A further investigation meeting was held with the claimant.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by Roger Pearce for misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the decision to dismiss him.
-
ACAS early conciliation notification
ACAS received the early conciliation notification.
-
ET1 claim form
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Substantive hearing begins
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions over three days.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for taking company property was unfair, and whether he was directly discriminated against on grounds of race compared to two white colleagues who had committed similar misconduct.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The claimant admitted taking two bicycles from lost property without permission. Mitie carried out an investigation and disciplinary process, including a second investigation meeting to address points raised by the claimant.
- The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a senior manager in a position of trust. The comparators relied on by the claimant were not in materially the same circumstances.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in full.
Lessons & takeaways
- Senior employees in positions of trust can expect to be held to a higher standard – taking company property without permission, even if intended for charity, is likely to be treated as gross misconduct.
- A fair process does not require interviewing every potential witness if the employer has sufficient evidence to form a reasonable belief in the misconduct.
- Comparators for discrimination claims must be in materially the same circumstances – a different role, manager, or disciplinary history can make a comparison invalid.
- Admitting the act but offering an innocent explanation does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer reasonably rejected that explanation.
When good intentions aren't enough
A Security Operations Manager with 14 years' service took two bicycles from his workplace's lost property. The bikes had been there for over a year. He said he had discussed the matter with a colleague who organised charity sales, and intended to make a contribution later. But he did not get permission, and when his employer found out, he was suspended, investigated, and dismissed for misconduct.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal accepted that Mitie Limited had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation. The disciplinary process included a hearing and a second investigation meeting to follow up on points the claimant raised. The dismissing officer considered the claimant's long service and clean record, but concluded that a senior manager in a position of trust who takes company property without authorisation could not be trusted going forward. The tribunal said that decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the race discrimination claim failed
The claimant argued that two white colleagues who had committed similar misconduct were treated more leniently. But the tribunal found their circumstances were materially different: one was not a manager, the other had a different line manager and a different disciplinary history. Without a valid comparator, the race discrimination claim could not succeed.
What this case shows
For employees, this case is a reminder that even long service and good intentions may not protect you if you bypass proper procedures – especially in a role where trust is central. For employers, it shows that a thorough investigation and fair process will usually justify a dismissal for gross misconduct, even when the employee has an otherwise clean record.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.