32-year store manager dismissed for misconduct after repeated policy breaches
A Tesco store manager with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed for misconduct after repeatedly opening the store alone and leaving it unsupervised, despite a live final written warning. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding it within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #store-manager
- #final-written-warning
- #opening-store-alone
- #leaving-store-unsupervised
- #price-integrity
- #out-of-code-products
- #demotion-considered
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Store Manager from 8 May 1990 until dismissal on 21 June 2022.
- He had a live Final Written Warning for selling out-of-code products, issued on 26 June 2021.
- He admitted to repeatedly opening the store alone, leaving the store without supervision, and failing to follow price integrity and waste processes.
- The respondent conducted an investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal process with independent managers.
- The claimant requested demotion at the disciplinary hearing but later declined to pursue it during the appeal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Customer Service Assistant.
-
Final Written Warning issued
Claimant received a Final Written Warning for knowingly selling out-of-code products and covering dates with reduction labels.
-
Moved to Clapham Wandsworth Express
Claimant became Store Manager of the Clapham Wandsworth Express branch.
-
Let's Talk discussion
Claimant was warned about opening the store alone; any reoccurrence would lead to formal investigation.
-
Staff complaint
A colleague emailed the claimant's line manager raising concerns about the claimant's behaviour and policy breaches.
-
Investigation meeting invitation
Claimant invited to investigation meeting regarding colleague complaint and policy breaches.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation meeting with Ms Cermakova; admitted to various policy breaches.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing scheduled for 21 June 2022.
-
Dismissal
After disciplinary hearing, claimant was dismissed for misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
First appeal hearing
Appeal hearing with Mr Banks; claimant initially requested demotion but later refused.
-
Second appeal hearing
Further appeal hearing; claimant provided evidence on staffing but it did not support his assertions.
-
Final appeal meeting (claimant did not attend)
Claimant's solicitor stated he would only accept reinstatement; dismissal confirmed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (conduct) and whether the employer's investigation, procedure, and decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, ruling that Tesco acted fairly throughout.
Key reasons:
- The claimant admitted to repeatedly opening the store alone, leaving it unsupervised, and failing to follow price integrity and waste processes.
- He had a live final written warning for selling out-of-code products.
- Tesco conducted a thorough investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal process with independent managers.
- The claimant initially requested demotion but later declined it during the appeal.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A live final written warning can make dismissal more likely for further misconduct, even for long-serving employees.
- Admitting to policy breaches during an investigation can significantly weaken a claim of unfair dismissal.
- Requesting demotion at a disciplinary hearing does not oblige the employer to offer it, especially if the employee later declines.
- Employers who follow their disciplinary policy and involve independent managers in investigations and appeals are more likely to defend dismissal decisions.
A long career undone by repeated policy breaches
This case shows that even 32 years of loyal service cannot always protect an employee from dismissal when there are clear and repeated breaches of policy. The store manager had already been given a final written warning for selling out-of-date products. Within a year, he admitted to opening the store alone, leaving it unsupervised, and failing to follow price integrity and waste processes. Tesco gave him a clear warning after a 'Let's Talk' discussion, but the behaviour continued.
What Tesco did right
Tesco's handling of the case was thorough. The investigation was conducted by a different store manager, the disciplinary hearing by another, and the appeal by an area manager — all independent of the original decision. The claimant was given the chance to explain his actions and even asked for demotion, though he later refused it. The tribunal noted that the employer's process was fair and that dismissal was a reasonable response to the misconduct, especially given the live warning.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant admitted the breaches early on, which made it hard to argue that Tesco did not have a reasonable belief in his misconduct. He also declined the demotion he had initially requested, removing a potential alternative to dismissal. For employees in similar situations, it is important to consider whether accepting a demotion or other sanction might be a better outcome than fighting the case.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will not second-guess an employer's decision if it falls within the 'range of reasonable responses' — even for long-serving staff. The key factors were the seriousness of the misconduct, the live warning, and the fair process. Employees facing similar allegations should engage constructively with the process and consider all options, including demotion, before the decision is made.
Similar cases
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.
Dismissed for refusing to attend meetings: conduct dismissal upheld
A clerical officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after repeatedly refusing to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
Installation engineer dismissed for fuelling personal car with company credit card
An installation engineer who used his employer's credit card to fuel his personal car on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal has ruled.