Transport coordinator dismissed for tachograph breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A transport coordinator with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being sacked for driving without a tachograph card. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider her mitigation and awarded £5,991.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tachograph-breach
- #final-written-warning
- #mitigation-not-considered
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for driving a company vehicle without a tachograph card inserted on 23 August 2018.
- The claimant had a live final written warning for failing to report a collision with a garage on the same date.
- The disciplinary officer did not allow the claimant to read out her handwritten mitigation notes and did not consider them.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to inadequate investigation and failure to consider mitigation.
- The tribunal applied a 30% Polkey reduction and a 25% contributory fault deduction.
- The claimant was awarded £5,991.08 in total compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a transport coordinator.
-
Complaint about manager
Claimant submitted a report and diary entries complaining about the behaviour of JS, the Regional Transport Manager.
-
Letter of concern issued
JS was issued with a letter of concern about his management style.
-
Incident with company vehicle
Claimant used a 7.5 tonne work vehicle for a personal house move, reversed into a garage causing damage, and left the scene without reporting it.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting with JS regarding the garage incident.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing conducted by JG for failure to report the accident, unacceptable behaviour, and breach of trust.
-
Final written warning issued
Claimant received a final written warning for the garage incident, valid for 12 months.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant went on sick leave due to cancer treatment until 15 April 2019.
-
Internal audit revealed tachograph breach
An internal audit by Mr Jones at the Newport Depot found that the claimant had driven 44 minutes without a tachograph card on 23 August 2018.
-
Investigation meeting for tachograph breach
Claimant attended an investigation meeting conducted by AR regarding the tachograph card removal.
-
Second disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing conducted by Mr Jones and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant received a letter confirming her summary dismissal for breach of tachograph regulations.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant lodged an appeal against the dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing conducted by Mr Newsome.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Newsome turned down the claimant's appeal.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
-
Liability hearing
Hearing on liability and remedy issues (Polkey and contributory fault) before Employment Judge Harfield.
-
Liability judgment
Reserved judgment finding unfair dismissal, with 30% Polkey deduction and 25% contributory fault deduction.
-
Remedy hearing
Hearing to determine the amount of compensation.
-
Remedy judgment
Reserved judgment awarding £5,991.08 total compensation.
-
Final judgment on costs
Claimant's application for a preparation time order and wasted costs order dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's summary dismissal for gross misconduct (driving a company vehicle without a tachograph card) was fair, and if not, what deductions should be made for her own conduct and the chance she would have been dismissed anyway under a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural failings. The disciplinary officer did not consider the claimant's written mitigation, which she had prepared but was not allowed to read out. This made the decision outside the range of reasonable responses.
Compensation was reduced by 30% (Polkey) to reflect the chance she would have been fairly dismissed anyway, and by 25% for contributory fault. The final award was:
- Basic award: £995.20
- Compensatory award: £4,915.88
- Total: £5,991.08
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must allow employees to present their full mitigation, including written statements, before making a dismissal decision.
- A live final written warning does not automatically justify dismissal for a separate misconduct – each case must be assessed on its own merits with proper process.
- Even where an employee has contributed to their dismissal, the employer still needs to follow a fair procedure or risk an unfair dismissal finding.
- Tribunals will apply Polkey reductions where a fair process would likely have led to dismissal anyway, but the employer must show this on the evidence.
This case shows how a procedural failure can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one. The transport coordinator was dismissed for driving a company vehicle without a tachograph card – a serious breach of regulations. But the tribunal found that the disciplinary officer, Mr Jones, did not allow her to read out her handwritten notes explaining the stressful circumstances. He also did not consider those notes at all when deciding to dismiss.
What went wrong
The employer had a valid reason to be concerned about the tachograph breach, especially as the claimant already had a final written warning for a separate incident. However, the tribunal emphasised that a fair procedure requires the decision-maker to genuinely consider any mitigation offered. By ignoring the claimant's written statement, Mr Jones failed to do this. The appeal also did not correct the flaw, as the appeal officer simply endorsed the original decision without addressing the procedural error.
What the employer could have done differently
Speedy Asset Services could have avoided this outcome by simply allowing the claimant to present her mitigation and considering it properly. Even if they still decided to dismiss, having a clear record of considering her explanation would have made the dismissal fair. The tribunal applied a 30% Polkey reduction because there was a real chance dismissal would have been the outcome anyway, but the procedural failure meant the actual dismissal was unfair.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that even when you have a live warning, the employer must still follow a fair process for a new misconduct allegation. For employers, it shows that ignoring an employee's written mitigation – especially when they have prepared it and want to present it – is a clear procedural error that can lead to an unfair dismissal finding, even if the underlying conduct is serious.
Similar cases
18-year driver dismissed after two receipt breaches: totting-up upheld despite delay
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a cash-in-transit driver with 18 years' service who was sacked for breaching the 'golden rule' twice while under a final written warning, despite a 130-day delay in the disciplinary process.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
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.