Tribunal Rejects Former Amazon Worker's Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal Claims

Mrs A Gurung was employed by Amazon Services UK Ltd as a Fulfilment Centre Associate from 13 June 2021. Between November 2022 and January 2024, the tribunal heard that the claimant was subject to escalating performance management meetings and had received performance warnings.

In April 2024, allegations were made regarding the claimant's conduct in the warehouse. A team leader informed an investigating officer, Mr D'Costa, that the claimant had been taking selfies while refilling buffer storage bins.

The claimant was subsequently invited to an investigatory meeting to discuss three allegations of misconduct. These included "idle time" and two allegations related to mobile phone use. The tribunal heard that the respondent's premises included designated no-phone areas, such as "Pallet land", to prevent distractions and injury.

The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing held by Mr Saitch-Smith. During the proceedings, it was noted that the claimant had checked the time on her mobile phone while pushing a trolley on 13 April 2024, an action she admitted was not safe. The tribunal also heard that on 25 April 2024, the claimant took a selfie on her mobile phone for her LinkedIn profile. The claimant was summarily dismissed on 6 June 2024.

The tribunal found the claimant's claim of unfair and wrongful dismissal was "not well founded and is dismissed".

In relation to the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had established that the reason for dismissal was misconduct. The judge said that the claimant's use of her mobile phone constituted a breach of the respondent's Mobile Phone Use Policy.

The tribunal found that the claimant was aware of the no-phone rule and the policy but chose to ignore it. It was noted that "the use of a mobile phone would be liable to create distractions and impair an employee's ability to operate safely". The tribunal found that the dismissing officer, Mr Saitch-Smith, had reasonable grounds for his belief that the conduct had occurred and that the decision was the result of a reasonable investigation. The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of responses available to a reasonable employer.

Regarding the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's actions amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, and the respondent was therefore entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice.

This case demonstrates that if an employee breaches a company's safety policies, an employer may be able to dismiss them fairly.

If you have a problem at work or believe you have been treated unfairly, you can get free, impartial advice from Acas.

• Acas: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service: a free, impartial public body that advises on problems at work and helps employers and workers settle disputes.
• Breach of contract: Not doing what the employment contract requires; in a tribunal it usually means notice pay or other money owed when the job ended.
• Claimant: The person who brings the claim, usually the worker or former worker.
• Dismissed (of a claim): When a tribunal dismisses a claim, the claim has failed. This is not the same as being dismissed from a job.
• Employment tribunal: An independent judicial body that decides disputes between workers and employers, such as unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
• Gross misconduct: Behaviour serious enough for an employer to dismiss someone straight away, without notice.
• Repudiatory breach: A breach of contract so serious that the other side may treat the contract as ended.
• Respondent: The employer, or other person or organisation, the claim is made against.
• Summary dismissal: Dismissal straight away, without notice or pay in place of notice, usually for gross misconduct.
• Tribunal: The legal body that hears and decides on employment disputes.
• Unfair dismissal: Being dismissed without a fair reason, or in an unfair way. Most employees need to have worked for a minimum period to claim it.
• Well-founded: The tribunal's phrase for a claim that succeeds. "Not well-founded" means it fails.
• Wrongful dismissal: Dismissal in breach of contract, usually without the notice, or notice pay, the employee was owed.

Case number: 6010751/2024
Claimant: Mrs A Gurung
Respondent: Amazon Services UK Ltd
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Bristol (Employment Judge Beever)
Decision date: 29 September 2026

Read the full decision on GOV.UK

Topics: breach of contract, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, misconduct

This report explains a published tribunal decision in plain English. It is general information, not legal advice.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.