Claimant v Albany Apartments Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was for gross misconduct (accessing the lift motor room via the roof in dangerous conditions). Although the disciplinary hearing procedure was flawed, the appeal hearing rectified those errors and provided a fair opportunity for the claimant to present his case. While the sanction was harsh, it fell within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer, particularly given the company handbook classified placing oneself in danger as gross misconduct.
The claim was never quantified or particularised, and no evidence was filed or called on this point. The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of substantiation.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Building Maintenance Person at an apartment block from November 2018 to October 2022. He was dismissed for gross misconduct after accessing the lift motor room via the external roof in the dark to attempt to reset a lift, which the respondent alleged was dangerous and unauthorised. The claimant maintained he was trained to reset lifts, regularly did so, and had been asked by a colleague. The tribunal found he was likely intoxicated at the time and that his actions placed him in danger.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. While the disciplinary hearing procedure was flawed (the claimant and his union representative were unable to attend properly), the appeal hearing rectified those errors and provided a fair process. The dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses despite being harsh, given the company handbook and the dangerous nature of the claimant's actions. The wages claim was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Practical note
A flawed disciplinary hearing can be cured by a properly conducted appeal hearing that allows the employee full opportunity to present their case, and dismissal for dangerous conduct can be within the range of reasonable responses even for a long-serving employee with a good record if it breaches clear health and safety policies.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400002/2023
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Building Maintenance Person
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- union