Shift manager dismissed for lone working and asking staff to stay after clocking out
A Lidl shift manager who admitted lone working and asking colleagues to remain in store after clocking out was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #lone-working
- #clocking-out-policy
- #health-and-safety
- #gross-misconduct
- #shift-manager
Key facts
- Mr Andronicou was employed as a Shift Manager at Lidl from 14 March 2017 until his summary dismissal on 20 September 2022.
- He was dismissed for gross misconduct involving lone working on two occasions and asking colleagues to remain in store after clocking out.
- Lidl held two investigation meetings, a disciplinary meeting, and an appeal hearing.
- Mr Andronicou admitted to the conduct but argued the investigation was unfair and the dismissal too harsh.
- The tribunal found that Lidl had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on reasonable grounds and followed a fair procedure.
- The dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses for a large employer like Lidl.
Timeline
-
Started employment
Mr Andronicou started working at Lidl as a Customer Assistant.
-
Promoted to Shift Manager
He was promoted to Shift Manager and completed Trading Law training.
-
Moved to Ferndown Store
He moved to the Ferndown Store as Shift Manager.
-
First incident of asking staff to stay after clocking out
Mr Andronicou asked colleagues who had clocked out to remain in store.
-
Second incident of asking staff to stay after clocking out
He again asked colleagues to remain after clocking out.
-
First lone working incident
Mr Andronicou worked alone in the store, which was against policy.
-
Third incident of asking staff to stay after clocking out
He asked colleagues to remain after clocking out for the third time.
-
First investigation meeting
Mr Vials held an investigation meeting with Mr Andronicou, who was told lone working was not permitted.
-
Second lone working incident
Mr Andronicou lone worked again after being told it was not allowed.
-
Second investigation meeting
Further investigation meeting where Mr Andronicou acknowledged lone working was not allowed.
-
Disciplinary meeting
A disciplinary meeting was held with Mr Simpson; Mr Andronicou was not allowed a family member as companion.
-
Summary dismissal
Mr Andronicou was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal hearing was held with Mr Shirras.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Shirras issued a 12-page outcome letter dismissing the appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Lidl acted reasonably in dismissing the shift manager for misconduct, considering whether the investigation was reasonable, the procedure fair, and whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. It found that Lidl had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on reasonable grounds, having carried out a reasonable investigation and followed a fair procedure. The decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses for a large employer like Lidl.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Admitting to the conduct does not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the employer still needs a fair process and reasonable grounds for belief.
- Repeated breaches of clear policies, especially after being warned, are likely to justify dismissal for gross misconduct.
- Employees in positions of trust and responsibility are held to higher standards of conduct.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how an employer can fairly dismiss an employee who admits to misconduct, provided the employer follows a proper process. The shift manager accepted that he had worked alone on two occasions and asked colleagues to stay after clocking out, but argued the investigation was unfair and the dismissal too harsh.
The tribunal found that Lidl had carried out two investigation meetings, a disciplinary meeting, and an appeal hearing. The manager was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The tribunal noted that the employer's policies on lone working and clocking out were clear, and the manager had been told during the first investigation that lone working was not permitted.
What the losing side could have done differently
The shift manager could have avoided dismissal by not repeating the behaviour after being warned. He continued to lone work after the first investigation meeting, which undermined his position. He also could have raised any concerns about the investigation at the time, rather than waiting until the tribunal hearing.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case confirms that tribunals will not substitute their own view for that of the employer, as long as the employer's decision was within the 'band of reasonable responses'. For employees, it shows that admitting to misconduct does not guarantee a finding of unfair dismissal. For employers, it reinforces the importance of having clear policies, investigating thoroughly, and following a fair procedure.
Similar cases
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Trainer dismissed for failing to conduct practical assessment: a fair conduct dismissal
A manual handling equipment trainer with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to carry out practical assessments for two returning employees. The tribunal upheld DHL's decision.
Assistant store manager dismissed for manipulating time-recording system: dismissal fair
An assistant store manager who allowed a colleague to work without clocking in and later falsified time records was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claim that lack of training excused the manipulation of the Kronos system.
Improvised lift using forklift and crane: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A Rebuild Repair Engineer was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after improvising a complex lift without proper equipment or training, breaching the company's Lifesaving Rules. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.