Senior officer with 13 years' service unfairly dismissed for failing to report a man drinking on site
A long-serving control centre officer was unfairly dismissed after he did not report a man drinking on a town hall complex. The tribunal found the employer failed to genuinely believe misconduct had occurred and relied on an unwritten procedure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #no-written-procedure
- #unwritten-custom
- #closed-mind
- #exemplary-record
- #gross-misconduct-not-established
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed for 13 years with no previous disciplinary issues.
- On 21 March 2021, the Claimant saw a man drinking on the Town Hall complex but did not report it to security because the man showed no anti-social behaviour.
- The man was later found dead; the Claimant had not escalated the matter.
- The Respondent dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct for failing to follow an alleged unwritten procedure.
- The Tribunal found the Respondent did not genuinely believe the Claimant committed misconduct and the procedure was unfair.
- The Tribunal held the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with the Respondent (or predecessor via TUPE).
-
Incident
Claimant observed a man drinking on the Town Hall complex at around 2am but did not report to security. The man was later found dead.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation for failure to follow procedures.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing on 15 April 2021.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing conducted by Shahzad Hussain; Claimant accompanied by Muhammad Khan.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Louise Duffield.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal chair upheld dismissal.
-
Claim issued
Claimant filed ET1 claim for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
-
First day of hearing
Substantive hearing by CVP.
-
Second day of hearing
Substantive hearing in person.
-
Judgment
Reserved judgment finding unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer genuinely believed the employee committed gross misconduct by failing to report a man drinking on site, and whether the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed.
Key reasons:
- The employer did not have a genuine belief that the claimant committed misconduct because the alleged procedure was unwritten and not consistently enforced.
- The dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses given the claimant's 13-year unblemished record and the lack of a clear written policy.
- No Polkey reduction was made as there was no chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed.
- No contributory fault was found.
Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to a fair process before dismissal, especially when the alleged misconduct is based on an unwritten rule.
- Employers should have clear written procedures for reporting incidents and ensure they are consistently applied to all staff.
- A genuine belief in misconduct requires a reasonable investigation and consideration of the employee's explanation.
- Dismissing for gross misconduct without notice is risky if the conduct does not clearly meet the contractual definition of gross misconduct.
When an unwritten rule leads to unfair dismissal
A senior control centre officer with 13 years of exemplary service lost his job after he saw a man drinking on a town hall complex in the early hours but did not report it. The man was later found dead, but the officer had no reason to suspect danger at the time. His employer, Waltham Forests Services Ltd, dismissed him for gross misconduct for failing to follow an alleged unwritten procedure to report all incidents.
The tribunal found this was unfair. The employer did not genuinely believe the officer had committed misconduct because the procedure was not written down and there was evidence it was not consistently enforced. The officer had an unblemished record and had acted reasonably in the circumstances.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by having a clear written policy on reporting incidents and ensuring all staff were trained on it. A proper investigation would have considered the officer's explanation and the lack of any previous disciplinary issues. Instead, the decision to dismiss was predetermined and outside the range of reasonable responses.
Why this case matters
This case highlights the importance of fair process, especially for long-serving employees. Tribunals will scrutinise dismissals based on unwritten rules and will not hesitate to find them unfair if the employer fails to show a genuine belief in misconduct. Employees in similar situations should note that a clean record and lack of clear policy can strengthen their claim for unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
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.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.
Machine Room Manager dismissed after blocking subordinate: conduct dismissal upheld
An Employment Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Machine Room Manager with 8 years' service who admitted physically blocking a subordinate during a workplace argument. No compensation was awarded.
22-year kitchen porter dismissed for sexual harassment: zero-tolerance policy upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a kitchen porter with 22 years' service after he whispered 'I wish I could impregnate you' to a colleague, following a previous warning about inappropriate comments.