Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant left work early on 29 October 2022 without authorisation.
- The claimant initially stated he started work at 7am but later admitted he arrived at 7.55am.
- The claimant admitted he had no intention of returning to site until contacted by a manager.
- The respondent investigated and found no evidence of a custom and practice of leaving early.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct; a colleague who left early but was not accused of dishonesty received a final written warning.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a Packing and Logistics Operator.
-
Performance improvement plan
Claimant placed on a 16-week performance improvement plan due to performance issues.
-
Verbal warning
Claimant received a formal verbal warning after being seen smoking in a restricted area and making an offensive gesture.
-
Complaint about behaviour
Claimant was investigated for causing distress to a colleague; he agreed to apologise and no further action was taken.
-
Unauthorised absence
Claimant arrived at 7.55am, left site at 11.45am without authorisation, and did not intend to return until contacted by a manager.
-
Investigation started
Steven Hardcastle appointed to investigate the shift's whereabouts and working practices.
-
Investigation report submitted
Steven Hardcastle submitted his report concluding all three shift members had failed to report their absence.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Janet Sankey chaired the hearing; claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence and dishonesty).
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed on grounds of unfairness, discrimination, and inconsistent treatment.
-
Appeal hearing
Michelle Harrison chaired the appeal; claimant argued custom and practice of leaving early.
-
Appeal dismissed
Michelle Harrison upheld the dismissal, finding no evidence of custom and practice and no inconsistency in sanctions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence and dishonesty) was fair, considering whether the employer had a genuine belief, reasonable grounds, and a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. It found that Mexichem UK Limited had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had committed gross misconduct. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, and the appeal process was fair. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service does not automatically protect against dismissal for gross misconduct if the employer has reasonable grounds and a fair process.
- Inconsistent treatment of colleagues is not necessarily unfair if there are material differences, such as one employee being dishonest and another not.
- Claiming a 'custom and practice' of leaving early requires strong evidence; an employer's investigation that finds no such evidence can support a fair dismissal.
- Dishonesty during the investigation, such as lying about start times, can significantly worsen the employee's position and justify a more severe sanction.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a long-serving employee can still be fairly dismissed for a single act of misconduct if the employer follows a proper process and the employee's conduct involves dishonesty. The claimant had 11 years' service and a clean disciplinary record for absence, but his decision to leave work early without permission and then lie about his start time was treated as gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted that the employer's investigation was reasonable, even though a colleague who also left early but was not dishonest received only a final written warning.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that there was a custom and practice of leaving early, but the employer's investigation found no evidence of this. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not raised this custom before the incident. If the claimant had sought permission or reported his early departure honestly, the outcome might have been different. The dishonesty about his start time was a key factor in the decision to dismiss rather than issue a lesser sanction.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer, as long as the employer's decision falls within the 'range of reasonable responses'. Even where there is some inconsistency in how colleagues are treated, if the employer can show a rational basis for the difference (here, dishonesty), the dismissal can be fair. Employees should be aware that claiming a custom or practice without solid evidence is unlikely to succeed, and that honesty during an investigation is crucial.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: unauthorised absences justified gross misconduct
A security officer with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed he left his post without authorisation on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Security officer dismissed for feinting punch at cadet: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A security officer who feinted a punch at a cadet after being sworn at was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected his claim that a colleague was treated more leniently for a similar incident.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Dismissed for keeping commission overpayments he knew were not due: employer acted fairly
A commercial development executive with 8 years' service was fairly dismissed after he failed to report three commission overpayments totalling £6,049.83 that he knew he was not entitled to. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.