Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tanker-driver
- #aviation-fuel
- #failure-to-report
- #procedural-unfairness
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #gross-misconduct
Key facts
- Mrs Price dropped a fuelling hose on her foot while delivering aviation fuel.
- She did not report the incident to Hoyer for several hours.
- Hoyer dismissed her for gross misconduct after an investigation.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because Mrs Price was not shown key documents.
- The tribunal held that dismissal was substantively fair and inevitable had a fair procedure been followed.
- A 100% Polkey reduction and 75% contributory fault reduction were applied.
Timeline
-
TUPE transfer
Mrs Price transferred to Hoyer Gas & Petroleum Logistics Ltd under TUPE.
-
Incident
Mrs Price dropped a fuelling hose on her foot at North Air's site. She did not report it to Hoyer immediately.
-
Report to North Air
Mrs Price reported the incident to North Air at 19:25, but not to Hoyer.
-
Report to Hoyer
Mrs Price called Hoyer's National Control Centre at 02:15 to report the incident.
-
Investigation started
Hoyer began an investigation, including a home visit by Ms French.
-
Investigation meeting
Second investigation meeting where Mrs Price accepted she should have reported the incident.
-
North Air ban
North Air banned Mrs Price from its premises.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Randall. Mrs Price was dismissed.
-
Dismissal letter
Mrs Price received the dismissal letter.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing chaired by Mr Cowperthwaite. The dismissal was upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for failing to report an incident was procedurally fair and whether the employee was unfairly dismissed. It also considered whether the dismissal was wrongful (breach of contract).
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the employee was not shown key documents during the investigation. However, it held that dismissal was substantively fair and inevitable had a fair procedure been followed.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £807.00
- Compensatory award: £0.00 (100% Polkey reduction)
- Contributory fault reduction: 75%
- Total award: £807.00
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must show all relevant documents to employees during disciplinary investigations to ensure procedural fairness.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, a tribunal may reduce compensation to nil if it finds dismissal was inevitable.
- Employees should report workplace incidents promptly to avoid potential disciplinary action.
- A Polkey reduction can eliminate compensatory awards if the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Contributory conduct reductions can significantly reduce basic awards if the employee's actions contributed to the dismissal.
A costly delay in reporting
A tanker driver with five years' service dropped a fuelling hose on her foot while delivering aviation fuel. She reported the incident to the client site but not to her employer, Hoyer Gas & Petroleum Logistics Limited, for several hours. This delay led to her dismissal for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that Hoyer's investigation was flawed because the driver was not shown key documents. This procedural failure made the dismissal unfair. However, the tribunal also concluded that the driver's failure to report was serious and that dismissal was the only reasonable outcome.
What the employer could have done differently
Hoyer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by ensuring the driver saw all relevant documents during the investigation. A fair process would have included sharing the client's report and any other evidence before the disciplinary hearing. This simple step would have made the dismissal procedurally fair.
Why this matters
This case shows that even when an employee's conduct warrants dismissal, procedural errors can still lead to an unfair dismissal finding. However, compensation can be reduced to almost nothing if the outcome would have been the same with a fair process. Employees should be aware that failing to report incidents promptly can have serious consequences, and employers must follow proper procedures to avoid liability.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Caretaker unfairly dismissed after council panel included complainants' spouses
A part-time caretaker was unfairly dismissed by Fordbridge Town Council after a disciplinary panel included the wife of a complainant and an appeal panel included the husband of a witness. The tribunal awarded £1,060.41.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: unfair dismissal for lack of disciplinary hearing
A night care assistant with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after being seen asleep on duty, because her employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing before sacking her. The tribunal awarded £962.79, reduced by 75% for her contributory conduct.
