Branch manager dismissed for using 'dump codes' to bypass asset tracking system
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a branch manager who used 'dump codes' to circumvent the company's asset tracking system, rejecting his claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #dump-codes
- #g42-system
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #misconduct
- #branch-manager
- #health-and-safety
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Branch Manager from 2 January 2014 to 31 January 2022.
- The claimant used dump codes and a header system to circumvent the G42 asset tracking system.
- An audit in February 2020 flagged the use of dump codes as non-compliant, but the claimant continued using them.
- The claimant admitted removing a turntable truck from a segregated 'do not touch' area and hiring it out.
- The dismissing officer, Mr. Ingleby, was unaware of the claimant's alleged public interest disclosures.
- The respondent's investigation found that the claimant instructed staff to change asset identification codes.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Branch Manager at Wolverhampton depot of Brandon Hire Station.
-
Audit flagged dump code use
An audit identified the use of dump codes as non-compliant; the claimant was informed.
-
Genie lifts hired without paperwork
Claimant hired out two Genie lifts without paperwork; manager Jason Laight asked for explanation.
-
Stock count found 171 missing assets
A full itemised stock count over 3 days identified 171 missing assets at the depot.
-
Claimant raised whistleblowing concerns
Claimant emailed a list of concerns including overcharging customers and health and safety issues.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for gross mismanagement, breach of health and safety rules, and breakdown of trust.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended disciplinary hearing accompanied by Scott Cooper; he read a detailed statement.
-
Dismissal decision
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross mismanagement, serious breach of health and safety, and breakdown of trust.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing chaired by Phil Jones; claimant's appeal was rejected on 18 March 2022.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct, whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because of protected disclosures, and whether the claimant was entitled to a bonus.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, not the claimant's alleged protected disclosures. The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were not well-founded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees should be aware that raising concerns does not automatically protect them from dismissal if there is clear evidence of misconduct.
- Employers should ensure that dismissing officers are not influenced by knowledge of protected disclosures to avoid claims of automatic unfair dismissal.
- Documenting the reasons for dismissal clearly and ensuring a fair process can help defend against unfair dismissal claims.
What this case shows in practice
A branch manager with eight years' service was dismissed after an investigation revealed he had been using 'dump codes' to bypass the company's asset tracking system, G42. The practice had been flagged as non-compliant in an audit, yet the manager continued to use it, and also instructed staff to change asset identification codes. He admitted removing a turntable truck from a segregated 'do not touch' area and hiring it out. The company concluded this amounted to gross mismanagement, a serious breach of health and safety, and a breakdown of trust.
The manager argued that his dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made protected disclosures about overcharging customers and health and safety issues. However, the tribunal found that the dismissing officer was unaware of those disclosures, and the principal reason for dismissal was the misconduct itself.
What the losing side could have done differently
The manager represented himself at the tribunal, while the respondent had legal counsel. The tribunal noted that the manager had been given a fair opportunity to present his case, but his arguments did not overcome the strong evidence of misconduct. The company had carried out a reasonable investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered an appeal. The manager could have avoided dismissal by ceasing the use of dump codes after the audit flagged them as non-compliant.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case highlights that even where an employee has raised legitimate concerns, a fair dismissal for misconduct can still be upheld if the employer follows a proper process and the misconduct is clearly established. It also underscores the importance of the dismissing officer being unaware of any protected disclosures to avoid a finding of automatic unfair dismissal. For employees, it serves as a reminder that whistleblowing protections do not create immunity from disciplinary action for separate misconduct.
Similar cases
Restaurant manager dismissed after reporting mouse droppings: whistleblowing claim fails
A restaurant manager with six months' service who reported mouse droppings and chef misconduct was not automatically unfairly dismissed, but won £3,201 for unpaid tronc and holiday pay.
Warehouse assistant who refused to return over Covid fears loses whistleblowing claim
A part-time warehouse assistant who refused to return to work due to Covid-19 safety concerns has lost his claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment against the British Heart Foundation.
Dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about a low worktable: whistleblowing claim succeeds
A printing assistant with only two months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after emailing his employer about back pain caused by a low worktable. The tribunal awarded £23,192.40.
Unit manager dismissed for leaving petrol station unattended: dismissal upheld
A Waitrose unit manager with 18 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after leaving a petrol filling station without a duty manager or keyholder present. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.