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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #golden-rule-breach
- #final-written-warning
- #delay-in-disciplinary-process
- #inconsistent-treatment
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a cash and valuables in transit driver from 4 February 2004 until 1 February 2022.
- On 21 September 2021 the claimant lost a receipt after delivering a bag; on 24 September 2021 he failed to obtain a receipt for a delivery.
- The claimant had a live final written warning for inappropriate behaviour/conduct issued on 8 April 2021.
- The disciplinary hearing took place on 1 February 2022, 130 days after the second incident, contrary to the respondent's 14-day policy.
- The claimant was dismissed for misconduct due to the totting up of warnings.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and not unfair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a cash and valuables in transit driver.
-
Final written warning issued
Claimant received a third level final warning for inappropriate behaviour/conduct, valid for 18 months.
-
First receipt incident
Claimant delivered a bag but later could not locate the receipt, breaching the golden rule.
-
Second receipt incident
Claimant made a delivery without obtaining a receipt, breaching the golden rule again.
-
Investigation meeting (first incident)
Claimant interviewed about the 24 September incident.
-
Investigation meeting (second incident)
Claimant interviewed about the 21 September incident.
-
Investigation report completed
Investigator recommended a formal disciplinary hearing due to the live warning.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended without written confirmation, following a further event.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Mr Hayes conducted the hearing and dismissed the claimant due to totting up of warnings.
-
First appeal hearing
Mr Banham heard the appeal and upheld the dismissal.
-
Second appeal hearing
Mr Holmes heard the second appeal and upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, considering the employer's delay in holding the disciplinary hearing, the lack of timely suspension, and alleged inconsistent treatment of other drivers.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The employer genuinely believed the claimant had breached the golden rule twice.
- The investigation was reasonable, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a totting-up case.
- The delay (130 days) was not so unreasonable as to make the dismissal unfair, given the claimant was not suspended for most of that period and the employer had other priorities.
- The claimant's previous final written warning was a live factor, and the two new incidents were genuine breaches.
- Allegations of inconsistent treatment were not substantiated.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A live final written warning can make a subsequent minor misconduct sufficient for dismissal under a totting-up policy.
- Even a long delay in the disciplinary process may not render a dismissal unfair if the employer can justify it and the employee is not prejudiced.
- Inconsistent treatment claims require specific evidence of comparable cases; general assertions are unlikely to succeed.
- Employers should follow their own procedures, but a breach of a 14-day policy does not automatically make a dismissal unfair.
When two small mistakes add up to dismissal
A cash-in-transit driver with 18 years of service lost his job after two relatively minor breaches of procedure – losing a receipt and failing to obtain one – because he was already under a final written warning. The case shows how 'totting-up' policies can make even low-level misconduct a final straw.
The driver had a final written warning from April 2021 for inappropriate behaviour. When he breached the 'golden rule' about receipts in September 2021, the employer decided to dismiss him. The disciplinary hearing took place 130 days later, far beyond the company's own 14-day target, and the driver was not suspended until late January 2022.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal accepted that the delay was significant, but noted that the driver was not suspended for most of that time and continued to work. The employer had other operational priorities, and the delay did not prejudice the driver's ability to defend himself. The tribunal also found no evidence that other drivers in similar situations had been treated more leniently.
Crucially, the tribunal held that the employer's belief in the misconduct was genuine and reasonable, and that dismissal was within the range of responses a reasonable employer might take. The fact that the driver had a live final written warning meant that even a relatively minor further breach could justify dismissal.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that employees with live warnings are at heightened risk of dismissal for subsequent misconduct, however minor. For employers, it shows that while procedural delays are risky, they do not automatically make a dismissal unfair – especially if the employee is not suspended and the delay is explained. Employees considering a claim should focus on whether the employer's decision was outside the range of reasonable responses, not just whether procedures were followed perfectly.
Similar cases
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.
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.