Warehouse operative dismissed after reversing pallet truck into supervisor: unfair but compensation cut 70%
A warehouse operative with 4 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a powered pallet truck collision with his supervisor. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the supervisor's own fault, but reduced compensation by 70% for the employee's contributory negligence.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #powered-pallet-truck
- #pedestrian-collision
- #failure-to-look
- #contributory-fault
- #supervisor-culpability
- #lack-of-remorse
Key facts
- The claimant reversed a powered pallet truck without looking behind him and struck his supervisor, causing injury.
- The claimant admitted he did not look in the direction of travel before reversing.
- The supervisor was walking across the loading bay and did not look to his right before crossing.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct (serious negligence).
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to the respondent's failure to properly consider the supervisor's contribution to the accident.
- The tribunal reduced compensation by 70% for contributory fault.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a warehouse operative for the respondent.
-
Previous accident
Claimant fell through a gap between a trailer and bay; respondent accepted responsibility.
-
Battery short incident
Claimant was involved in an incident where a PPT battery shorted; no disciplinary action taken.
-
Shift change request
Claimant requested and was granted a shift pattern change.
-
Accident
Claimant reversed a PPT without looking and struck supervisor Glyn Slater, causing injury.
-
Investigation interview
Claimant was interviewed by Michelle Lowe; he stated he did not see Mr Slater.
-
Invitation to disciplinary
Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Mr Henney dismissed the claimant for serious negligence causing injury.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Maude heard the claimant's appeal and upheld the dismissal.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Broughton found unfair dismissal but reduced compensation by 70% for contributory fault.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct (serious negligence) was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the employer acted within the band of reasonable responses when investigating and deciding to dismiss.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to properly consider the supervisor's contribution to the accident. The supervisor was walking across the loading bay without looking to his right, which contributed to the collision.
However, the employee was 70% responsible for the accident because he reversed without looking behind him, despite knowing the area was busy. The compensation was reduced accordingly:
- Basic award: reduced by 70%
- Compensatory award: reduced by 70%
- No Polkey reduction applied
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider all contributing factors, including the actions of other employees, when deciding whether to dismiss for misconduct.
- Employees who admit to unsafe practices, such as not looking before reversing, risk having their compensation significantly reduced for contributory fault.
- A fair investigation requires the employer to weigh up the culpability of all parties involved, not just the employee being dismissed.
- Even if a dismissal is found unfair, the employee's own blameworthy conduct can lead to a substantial reduction in compensation.
What this case shows in practice
A warehouse operative with 4 years' service was dismissed after reversing a powered pallet truck (PPT) into his supervisor, causing injury. The employee admitted he did not look behind him before reversing. However, the supervisor was also walking across the loading bay without checking for traffic. The employer focused solely on the employee's failure to look and dismissed him for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found this was unfair because the employer did not properly consider the supervisor's contribution to the accident. The employer's investigation was one-sided, and the appeal officer failed to address this point. The dismissal was therefore outside the band of reasonable responses.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer should have conducted a more balanced investigation, looking at the actions of both the employee and the supervisor. The supervisor's failure to look before crossing was a significant factor. By ignoring this, the employer made a procedural error that rendered the dismissal unfair.
Why this result matters
This case highlights that employers must consider all relevant circumstances when dismissing for misconduct, especially when multiple parties are at fault. Employees who admit to unsafe practices can still win unfair dismissal claims if the employer's process is flawed, but they risk having their compensation heavily reduced for contributory fault. Here, the employee's 70% reduction shows that tribunals will penalise blameworthy conduct even when the dismissal is unfair.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Headteacher dismissed for tapping her son's hand: unfair dismissal win after 17 years' service
A headteacher with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after tapping her 3-year-old son's hand to get his attention. The tribunal awarded £102,328.80, reduced by 20% for contributory fault.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.
Care home manager unfairly dismissed after smoking at work: tribunal finds opportunistic motive
A Liverpool tribunal ruled that a care home manager with nine years' service was unfairly dismissed for smoking in the office, finding the real reason was antagonism after she raised a grievance. She was awarded £3,854.25, reduced by 50% for contributory fault.