Cases6012452/2024

Claimant v Kitchen Trade Suppliers Limited

25 August 2025Before Employment Judge ShulmanLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct relating to failing to complete vehicle safety checks and photocopying pre-filled check sheets. Despite significant procedural shortcomings by the respondent, the tribunal found there was sufficient substantive evidence of the misconduct and the claimant gave no reasonable explanation for his conduct. The tribunal therefore concluded the dismissal was fair.

Facts

The claimant was a driver who was dismissed on 1 August 2024 for failing to complete vehicle safety checks and instead photocopying pre-filled check sheets. He had previously received a written warning in August 2023 and a final written warning in June 2024 for various conduct matters including not following proper procedures. The respondent discovered approximately 10 photocopied driver check sheets in the claimant's van, indicating he had not been conducting daily safety checks as required. The claimant denied responsibility and claimed he was being targeted, but provided no convincing explanation for the photocopied sheets.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. Despite acknowledging significant procedural shortcomings by the respondent (no investigatory meeting, no right to be accompanied, no notes of disciplinary hearing, dismissing officer not called as witness), the tribunal concluded there was sufficient substantive evidence of the misconduct. The claimant gave no reasonable explanation for the photocopied safety check sheets, and the tribunal found the respondent had proven conduct as the reason for dismissal and had acted within the range of reasonable responses.

Practical note

Even significant procedural failings in a disciplinary process may not render a dismissal unfair where there is overwhelming substantive evidence of serious misconduct and the employee provides no credible explanation.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(1)ERA 1996 s.98(2)ERA 1996 s.98(4)

Case details

Case number
6012452/2024
Decision date
25 August 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No
Rep type
in house

Employment details

Role
Driver

Claimant representation

Represented
No