Dismissed over £14,500 theft from store safe: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A former employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into a theft of £14,500 from a store safe has lost his claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid commission.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #theft-investigation
- #grievance
- #commission-dispute
- #costs-application
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct following an investigation into a theft of £14,500 from the store safe.
- The claimant raised grievances and argued the investigation was inadequate.
- The tribunal preferred the respondent's witness evidence over the claimant's.
- The claimant also claimed wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages regarding commission.
- The respondent applied for costs, which was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Respondent requests lead case status
The respondent asked the tribunal to make this case the lead case due to shared facts with another claimant.
-
Claimant objects to lead case
The claimant's solicitor objected to the case being designated as lead case, which the tribunal later found unreasonable due to delay.
-
Schedule of Loss due
The claimant was due to provide an updated schedule of loss but submitted it over a week late, citing a clerical error.
-
Claimant issues costs warning
The claimant's solicitor sent a costs warning to the respondent to encourage settlement.
-
Final hearing begins
The substantive hearing took place over three days at London South Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment given
Employment Judge Krepski dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages.
-
Respondent applies for costs
The respondent applied for costs on grounds that the claim had no reasonable prospects and the claimant acted vexatiously.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Krepski dismissed the costs application, finding the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable overall.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation into a theft and subsequent dismissal for gross misconduct were fair, and whether the employee was entitled to notice pay and unpaid commission.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages.
- The tribunal found that the employer's investigation was adequate and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The tribunal preferred the employer's witness evidence over the claimant's, noting inconsistencies in the claimant's account.
- The claim for unpaid commission was also dismissed as the tribunal found no contractual entitlement.
- The employer's application for costs was dismissed, as the tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable overall.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure investigations into alleged misconduct are thorough and reasonable, but tribunals will often defer to the employer's judgment if the process is fair.
- Employees who bring weak claims risk having costs awarded against them, but tribunals are cautious about granting costs unless the claim is clearly unreasonable or vexatious.
- Claims for unpaid commission require clear contractual terms; without them, tribunals are unlikely to imply a right to commission.
- Representing yourself in a complex case can be challenging; the tribunal will assess evidence objectively but may prefer the employer's professional representation.
When a theft investigation leads to dismissal
This case shows how tribunals approach disputes where an employee is dismissed following an investigation into alleged theft. The former employee, who had worked for Oak Furnitureland Group Limited, was dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into a theft of £14,500 from the store safe. The employee argued the investigation was inadequate and raised grievances, but the tribunal preferred the employer's witness evidence.
What the employer did right
The employer conducted an investigation and made a decision based on the evidence available. The tribunal found that the employer's response was within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer could have taken. This is a key point: tribunals do not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer, but assess whether the employer's decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
Why the result matters
This case highlights the importance of having clear evidence and a fair process when dismissing for gross misconduct. It also shows that claims for unpaid commission are unlikely to succeed unless there is a clear contractual entitlement. The employer's application for costs was dismissed, which is a reminder that tribunals are cautious about awarding costs even when the claim fails, unless the claimant has acted unreasonably or vexatiously. For employees considering similar claims, it is essential to have strong evidence and legal advice, as pursuing a weak claim can be costly and stressful.
Similar cases
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.
10-year employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A Media Sales Operator with 10 years' service had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out after repeatedly failing to comply with tribunal directions. The tribunal awarded costs against him.