24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #manual-carded-events
- #falsification
- #gross-misconduct
- #senior-manager
- #long-service
- #conduct-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was an Operations Manager with 24 years' service.
- In December 2020, the respondent banned manual carded entries unless justified.
- The claimant continued to make manual carded entries without proper notes from March 2021.
- The respondent investigated and found the claimant's explanations for the entries incorrect.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- Two appeals were heard and both upheld the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Ban on manual carded entries
Mr Woodruff emailed staff banning all manual carded entries unless justified with notes.
-
Management meeting
Mr Woodruff reinforced the ban at a management meeting.
-
National Operations flagged high manual carded events
The National Operations Team flagged a high number of manual carded events at Dunstable.
-
Claimant responded to audit
The claimant spent time responding to the spreadsheet of consignment issues.
-
Investigation meeting and suspension
Mr Woodruff met with the claimant and suspended him on full pay pending investigation.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Mr Daily chaired the disciplinary hearing; the claimant attended unrepresented.
-
Reconvened disciplinary hearing
The hearing resumed after further investigation.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr Daily sent a letter summarily dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
First appeal hearing
Mr Bellikli chaired the first appeal; the claimant attended unrepresented.
-
First appeal dismissed
Mr Bellikli wrote to the claimant dismissing the appeal.
-
Second appeal hearing
Ms Hughes chaired the second appeal; the claimant attended unrepresented.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice (wrongful dismissal).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation.
- The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a senior manager with 24 years' service who deliberately breached a clear policy on manual carded entries.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims failed entirely.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not protect you from dismissal for deliberate policy breaches, especially if you are a senior manager expected to set an example.
- If you are accused of misconduct, ensure you give accurate and consistent explanations during the investigation — inconsistencies can be used against you.
- Employers should ensure that policies are clearly communicated and consistently enforced; the tribunal will consider whether the employee knew or ought to have known the rule.
- Representing yourself at a disciplinary hearing is risky — consider bringing a colleague or union rep, especially in complex cases.
When 24 years of service isn't enough to save your job
This case shows that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for a single breach of a clear company policy. The claimant, an Operations Manager at DPD's Dunstable depot, had worked for the company for 24 years. But when he continued to make manual carded entries — a way of recording undelivered parcels — after a ban was imposed, and then gave explanations that the investigation found to be incorrect, the company decided that trust and confidence had broken down.
The tribunal heard that the ban on manual carded entries was introduced in December 2020 to improve accuracy and reduce customer complaints. The claimant was aware of the ban, yet from March 2021 he made a number of manual entries without proper notes. When questioned, his explanations did not match the evidence. The company investigated, held a disciplinary hearing (reconvened once), and dismissed him summarily for gross misconduct. Two internal appeals upheld the decision.
What the tribunal looked at
The key question was whether DPD had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The tribunal said yes. It noted that the claimant was a senior manager who should have known the rules, and that his explanations were found to be false. The fact that he had 24 years' service did not outweigh the seriousness of the breach.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that tribunals will not second-guess an employer's decision if it falls within the 'range of reasonable responses' — even if the employee has a long and unblemished record. For employees, the lesson is clear: if you are accused of misconduct, be honest and consistent from the start. For employers, it shows the importance of having a clear policy, communicating it, and following a fair process — which DPD did here, including offering two appeal hearings.
Similar cases
Dismissed for 'ghost overtime' after 22 years: Royal Mail's conduct decision upheld
An employee with 22 years' service was fairly dismissed for fraudulently claiming 706 hours of unauthorised overtime, the tribunal has ruled.
Assistant manager dismissed for manipulating time records: a fair decision
An assistant manager with eight years' service was fairly dismissed for amending his Kronos time records after CCTV showed discrepancies. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.