Support worker dismissed for threatening colleague with gun: conduct dismissal upheld
A support worker who claimed he was unfairly dismissed after allegedly threatening a colleague with a gun has lost his case. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and dismissal were reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #threat-of-violence
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #vehicle-checks
- #grievance-delay
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly threatening a colleague with a gun.
- The claimant made multiple changes to his Scott schedule, reducing alleged protected disclosures from 53 to 3.
- The claimant refused a settlement offer of £18,500 and claimed over £1.7 million in his schedule of loss.
- The tribunal found no evidence of conspiracy or that protected disclosures influenced the dismissal.
- The respondent's investigation and disciplinary process were found to be reasonable.
Timeline
-
Meeting with Ms Tipper
Claimant raised multiple concerns about working conditions, including health and safety and falsification of records.
-
Meeting with Mr Shepherd
Claimant met with Operations Director Sam Shepherd to discuss his grievances.
-
Grievance outcome
Mr Shepherd issued outcome letter, partially upholding some grievances.
-
Alleged protected disclosure about vehicle checks
Claimant emailed Ms Tipper expressing suspicion that vehicle safety checks were not being carried out.
-
Investigation into claimant's conduct begins
Ms Tipper initiated fact-find investigation following concerns raised by colleagues.
-
Claimant suspended
Mr Ellis suspended the claimant on average pay pending investigation into two allegations.
-
Interviews with colleagues
Ms Hamilton-Smith interviewed Ms Bennett, who alleged the claimant threatened her with a gun.
-
Further interview with claimant
Claimant interviewed regarding allegations of inappropriate comments and threatening behaviour.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Mr Collier chaired disciplinary hearing; claimant denied allegations.
-
Dismissal letter
Mr Collier dismissed claimant for gross misconduct (threatening comment).
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Ellis upheld dismissal after appeal hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the claimant was dismissed or subjected to detriment because of protected disclosures he had made.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal and detriment for public interest disclosures.
Key reasons:
- The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct (threatening a colleague with a gun) after a reasonable investigation.
- The disciplinary process was fair, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
- The alleged protected disclosures did not materially influence the decision to suspend or dismiss.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure they have a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a fair investigation — this case shows a thorough process can defend a conduct dismissal.
- Making multiple changes to a Scott schedule and withdrawing most alleged disclosures can weaken a whistleblowing claim, as it suggests the claims lack substance.
- Refusing a reasonable settlement offer and pursuing a claim for over £1.7 million carries significant costs risk if the claim fails — the employer here applied for costs.
- A delay in processing a grievance (here over two years) may not be enough to prove detriment if there is no link to a protected disclosure.
What this case shows in practice
A support worker was dismissed after a colleague reported that he had told her he had a gun with her name on it. The employer investigated, held a disciplinary hearing, and dismissed for gross misconduct. The employee claimed he was actually being targeted because he had raised concerns about working conditions and vehicle safety checks — so-called protected disclosures.
The tribunal heard that the employee had initially listed 53 alleged protected disclosures, but by the hearing this had been whittled down to just three. The tribunal found no evidence that his disclosures had influenced the employer's decision. Instead, the employer had a genuine belief in the threat, based on interviews with witnesses and the employee's own conduct during the investigation.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employee refused a settlement offer of £18,500 and instead claimed over £1.7 million. His case was weakened by the fact that he repeatedly changed his allegations and withdrew most of his original claims. The tribunal noted that his fiancée, who represented him, struggled to keep the case focused.
For employers, the case is a reminder that a thorough investigation — including interviewing all relevant witnesses and giving the employee a chance to respond — can make a conduct dismissal fair, even when the employee disputes the allegations.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will respect an employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct if the employer genuinely believes the misconduct happened, has reasonable grounds for that belief, and follows a fair procedure. It also shows that whistleblowing claims will fail if there is no real link between the disclosure and the dismissal — especially when the employee's own case keeps changing.
Similar cases
Compliance Director dismissed days after blowing the whistle to the FCA: £564,672 award
A Compliance Director who reported money laundering and unauthorised directors to the FCA was dismissed four days later. The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair and awarded over half a million pounds.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: dismissal upheld
A night care assistant who was found asleep on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Trader dismissed for alleged leak after raising mismarking concerns: unfair dismissal upheld
A trader with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed by EDF Trading Limited after a flawed investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but rejected his whistleblowing claim.
Whistleblowing sign erector wins unfair dismissal claim against First Signs Ltd
A sign erector with only 7 months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after raising road safety concerns about unroadworthy vehicles. The tribunal awarded £9,858.56.