Bus manager dismissed over strip dance video wins unfair dismissal claim
A bus operations manager was unfairly dismissed after recording a colleague dancing to 'The Stripper'. The employer conceded liability and was ordered to pay £52,190.47.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strip-dance-incident
- #company-phone-use
- #acas-code-breach
- #mitigation-of-loss
- #contributory-fault
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a bus operations manager from 21 August 2017 to 5 August 2021.
- He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct relating to a strip dance video and inappropriate use of a company mobile phone.
- The respondents conceded liability for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal on the first day of the hearing.
- The tribunal found no culpable or blameworthy conduct by the claimant in either incident.
- The respondents breached the ACAS Code of Practice in their disciplinary process, leading to a 15% uplift.
- The claimant mitigated his loss by obtaining alternative employment, and no Polkey reduction was applied.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment as a bus operations manager.
-
Strip dance incident
Claimant recorded colleague Mr McAleer dancing to 'The Stripper' in the office; Mr McAleer was a willing participant.
-
Company phone incident
Claimant recorded a non-work conversation with Mr McAleer on a company mobile phone.
-
Investigation begins
Respondents started investigating the incidents, taking statements from witnesses.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, receiving one week's pay as a goodwill gesture.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal to the tribunal.
-
New job with First Bus
Claimant started a new role with First Bus, but resigned in October 2022 due to relocation and merger.
-
Job with Carousel Buses
Claimant commenced a role as a PVC driver with Carousel Buses, working 39 hours per week.
-
Hearing day 1
Liability conceded; tribunal heard evidence on remedy issues.
-
Hearing day 2
Further evidence and submissions; judgment given orally.
-
Judgment date
Written judgment issued, awarding £52,190.47.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's actions in recording a colleague's strip dance and a non-work conversation on a company phone amounted to gross misconduct, and whether the employer's disciplinary process was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal after the employer conceded liability on the first day of the hearing.
Key reasons for the decision:
- The claimant's conduct in both incidents was not culpable or blameworthy; the colleague was a willing participant in the strip dance.
- The employer breached the ACAS Code of Practice by failing to follow a fair disciplinary process.
- The claimant mitigated his loss by obtaining alternative employment, and no Polkey reduction was applied.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £3,264
- Compensatory award: £46,079.47
- Damages for wrongful dismissal: £2,847
- Total: £52,190.47
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure disciplinary processes are fair and follow the ACAS Code of Practice, or risk a 25% uplift on compensation.
- Recording a willing participant in a light-hearted office prank is unlikely to amount to gross misconduct.
- Employees should mitigate their loss by seeking alternative employment promptly after dismissal.
- Conceding liability early can limit legal costs but may still result in significant compensation if the process was flawed.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the importance of a fair disciplinary process, even when an employer believes misconduct has occurred. The bus operations manager was dismissed for recording a colleague dancing to 'The Stripper' and a non-work conversation on a company phone. However, the tribunal found that the colleague was a willing participant in the dance, and the conversation was not work-related but not malicious. The employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice meant the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have avoided liability by conducting a thorough investigation and considering whether the conduct truly amounted to gross misconduct. They also breached the ACAS Code by not allowing the employee to appeal or by not following proper procedures. A more proportionate response, such as a warning, might have been appropriate given the lack of culpability.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will scrutinise the fairness of the process, not just the outcome. Employees who are dismissed for minor or consensual workplace incidents may have strong claims if the employer fails to follow proper procedures. The 15% ACAS uplift also highlights the financial consequences of procedural breaches.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
HGV driver dismissed after heated route dispute: no disciplinary hearing meant unfair dismissal
An HGV driver who refused a route in anger and left work was unfairly dismissed when his employer treated it as resignation without a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but will apply significant reductions for his conduct.
Geography teacher dismissed after relationship breakdown: unfair dismissal and victimisation claim succeeds in part
A tribunal found that a geography teacher with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed by United Learning Trust after a breakdown in relationships, and that a headteacher victimised him by providing a negative reference. He was awarded £36,677.70.
Dismissed for using company fuel card on furlough: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A machine tool services engineer was unfairly dismissed after using a company fuel card during furlough, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because he would have been dismissed anyway.