Dismissed for dishonest call to employer's solicitors: union convener loses unfair dismissal claim
A warehouse operative and union convener was fairly dismissed after falsely claiming to be a union member's representative when calling the employer's solicitors. The tribunal rejected his claims of automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #trade-union-activity
- #gross-misconduct
- #dishonesty
- #settlement-discussions
- #procedural-failure
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a warehouse operative and union convener from August 2017 to 7 September 2022.
- On 9 June 2022, the claimant called Shoosmiths, the respondent's solicitors, and falsely claimed to be the named representative for a union member on an ET1 form.
- The claimant knew Shoosmiths represented the respondent, not the union member.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, finding he had provided false or misleading information.
- The tribunal found the claimant's conduct was dishonest and separable from protected trade union activities.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims: automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a warehouse operative at DHL Services Ltd.
-
First call to Shoosmiths
Claimant called Adil Qadus at Shoosmiths, falsely claiming to be the representative for Mohammad Azam on an ET1 form, and discussed settlement.
-
Second call to Shoosmiths
Claimant called Adil Qadus three times, asking what he had told the respondent about the 9 June call, after receiving an investigation invite.
-
Suspension and disciplinary invite
Claimant was suspended and invited to a disciplinary hearing regarding the calls and a COT3 breach.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing with Tariq Hussain; he maintained the call was a mistake.
-
Dismissal
Tariq Hussain decided to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct, finding he had provided false information.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing with Chris Tonks; claimant maintained his explanation.
-
Appeal outcome
Chris Tonks upheld the dismissal, finding the claimant had not been open and honest.
-
Final hearing begins
Three-day hearing at Birmingham Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Childe.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because his conduct was part of trade union activities, and whether the dismissal for dishonesty was fair overall.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims: automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's call to Shoosmiths, where he falsely claimed to be a representative for a union member, was dishonest and separable from any protected trade union activity.
- The respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had provided false or misleading information, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The appeal process was fair and the outcome was upheld.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Dishonest conduct, even in a union context, can be treated as gross misconduct and justify dismissal.
- Union representatives are not immune from disciplinary action if their actions are dishonest and not part of legitimate union activities.
- Employers should ensure a fair investigation and appeal process, which can help defend against unfair dismissal claims.
- Claimants should be aware that falsely representing someone in legal proceedings can have serious consequences, including dismissal.
This case shows that even a long-serving employee and union convener can be fairly dismissed for dishonesty, provided the employer follows a fair process. The claimant, a warehouse operative with five years' service, made a call to the employer's solicitors pretending to be the representative for a union member. The tribunal found this was dishonest and not part of his protected trade union activities.
What the employer did right
DHL Services Ltd conducted a thorough investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and gave the claimant a chance to explain. The appeal hearing was also properly conducted. The tribunal noted that the employer had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had provided false information, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that union representatives are not above the rules. If an employee's conduct is dishonest and separable from their union role, they can be dismissed. The tribunal carefully separated the claimant's protected activities from his dishonest act, which was key to the decision. Employees should be aware that calling an employer's solicitors under false pretences is likely to be treated as gross misconduct, regardless of their union status.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Dismissed for stealing diesel: procedural flaws made it unfair
A Highways Maintenance Operative was unfairly dismissed after admitting to stealing diesel, but the tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process were procedurally flawed.
Charity cake sale raised funds but not proof: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A Force Control Room Operator was fairly dismissed after failing to provide proof of a charity donation from a cake sale, the tribunal has ruled. No compensation was awarded.