Train cleaner dismissed for alleged theft: flawed investigation but 100% contributory fault
A train cleaner with 21 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into alleged theft of soap, but the tribunal found he actually committed theft, reducing compensation to zero.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #theft-allegation
- #gross-misconduct
- #cctv-evidence
- #flawed-investigation
- #contributory-conduct-100-percent
- #acas-code-breach
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a train cleaner for over 21 years.
- On 12 November 2020, the claimant placed a container under an LNER information stand and retrieved it at the end of his shift.
- The respondent alleged the container held 5 litres of pink soap belonging to the company; the claimant said it was orange juice from a charity.
- The investigation was conducted by the main witness, Mr Vitali, who made dishonest statements and acted oppressively.
- The disciplinary hearing proceeded without the claimant seeing the CCTV footage, which was not shared until after the decision.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but concluded the claimant had actually committed theft, reducing compensation by 100% for contributory fault.
Timeline
-
Start of continuous employment
The claimant began working as a train cleaner, later transferring to the respondent on 20 November 2019.
-
Alleged theft incident
During his shift, the claimant placed a container under an LNER stand and retrieved it at the end of his shift. The respondent alleged it was 5 litres of pink soap; the claimant said it was orange juice.
-
Investigation meeting and suspension
Mr Vitali held an investigation meeting, falsely claiming CCTV evidence existed, and suspended the claimant pending investigation.
-
Second investigation meeting
Ms Ahmadzade conducted a meeting; she misrepresented evidence and concluded theft had occurred, recommending dismissal.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Ms Montes held a hearing; the claimant was not shown the CCTV footage. Ms Montes later viewed the footage and gathered additional evidence without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond.
-
Decision to dismiss
Ms Montes decided to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct (theft).
-
Dismissal confirmed
The respondent sent a dismissal letter confirming summary dismissal for theft of 5 litres of liquid soap.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Allen heard the appeal; he viewed the CCTV footage and interviewed witnesses but did not give the claimant an opportunity to respond to new evidence.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Allen upheld the dismissal, rejecting all six grounds of appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for alleged theft of 5 litres of pink soap, and whether the claimant actually committed theft for the wrongful dismissal claim.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the investigation was flawed: the main investigator made dishonest statements, the claimant was not shown CCTV footage before the decision, and new evidence was gathered after the hearing without giving the claimant a chance to respond. However, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had actually committed theft (the container held soap, not orange juice as he claimed). As a result, any compensation was reduced by 100% for contributory fault, meaning the claimant received nothing. The claim for wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) also failed because the theft was proved on the balance of probabilities. The respondent was found to have breached the ACAS Code of Practice by failing to provide key documents, but no award was made due to the 100% reduction.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must share key evidence like CCTV footage with the employee before making a dismissal decision, and give them a chance to respond.
- A flawed investigation can make a dismissal unfair even if the employee actually committed the misconduct.
- Employees who are found to have contributed to their dismissal by blameworthy conduct can see their compensation reduced by up to 100%.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough and fair process, but that does not protect them if they are found to have committed gross misconduct.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how a procedurally flawed dismissal can still leave an employee with no compensation if the tribunal finds they actually committed the misconduct. The claimant, a train cleaner with over 21 years of service, was dismissed for allegedly stealing 5 litres of pink soap from his employer, Atalian Servest Limited. The investigation was marred by serious errors: the main investigator made dishonest statements, the claimant was not shown CCTV footage until after the decision, and the disciplinary officer gathered additional evidence without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond.
Despite these failings, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had in fact taken the soap, not orange juice as he claimed. This meant that while the dismissal was procedurally unfair, the claimant's own culpable conduct contributed entirely to his dismissal. As a result, any compensation was reduced by 100%, leaving him with nothing.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have avoided a finding of unfair dismissal by conducting a more thorough and transparent investigation. Sharing the CCTV footage with the claimant before the disciplinary hearing and allowing him to respond to all evidence would have been key. The investigator's dishonest statements and the failure to give the claimant a fair opportunity to challenge new evidence were critical errors. However, even if the process had been perfect, the outcome might have been the same given the tribunal's finding that the theft actually occurred.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that a finding of unfair dismissal does not automatically lead to a financial award. Where the employee is found to have contributed to their dismissal by blameworthy conduct, the tribunal can reduce compensation by up to 100%. Employees considering bringing a claim should be aware that if the tribunal finds they committed the alleged misconduct, they may receive nothing, even if the employer's process was flawed. For employers, the case underscores the importance of a fair investigation, but also shows that a strong finding of actual misconduct can limit their financial exposure.
Similar cases
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
23-year production manager dismissed over scrap wood sales: conduct dismissal upheld
A production manager with 23 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into missing scrap wood sale proceeds, the tribunal ruled, despite errors in the employer's spreadsheet evidence.
Night shelf stacker dismissed for failing to scan items: Tesco's decision upheld
A Tesco employee with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to scan and pay for items on multiple occasions while using the Scan as You Shop service. The tribunal found Tesco's investigation and decision were reasonable.
Patient Administrator dismissed for theft after CCTV evidence: claim struck out as hopeless
A tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim from a Patient Administrator who was dismissed for allegedly stealing a colleague's bag, after finding CCTV footage left no reasonable prospect of success.