Lidl Fires Dehydrated Worker for Drinking 17p Water Bottle
An employment tribunal has ruled against Julian Oxborough, a Lidl employee who was dismissed after drinking a bottle of water worth 17p while on duty. The incident occurred on July 19, 2024, at the Wincanton store in Somerset.
Lidl Employee Dismissed for Drinking Water
Oxborough was serving a customer when the customer exchanged a bottle of water without a barcode for one that had one. The customer left the unscanned bottle at the checkout. Later, during his shift, Oxborough drank from it, believing it could be written off since he had seen similar bottles in the canteen.
Investigation and Dismissal
The following day, a store manager discovered the bottle and suspected a violation of store policy. An investigation was launched, during which Oxborough claimed he was feeling dehydrated and concerned for his health. He admitted he had forgotten to pay for the water.
- Date of Incident: July 19, 2024
- Duration of Employment: Over 10 years
- Location: Lidl Store, Wincanton, Somerset
Oxborough expressed that he did not intend to be dishonest but acknowledged that he realized his actions were wrong. He cited stress from work and personal worries as contributing factors to his decision.
Tribunal Ruling
At a tribunal hearing in Southampton in October 2025, Judge Yallop upheld Lidl’s decision, dismissing Oxborough’s claims of unfair dismissal. Lidl’s area manager, Karina Moon, argued that Oxborough had been inconsistent in his statements regarding the purchase of the water and that he should have known the proper protocols.
Moon concluded that there was no viable alternative to dismissal given the circumstances. She emphasized the importance of adhering to company policy regarding the consumption of unpaid items.
Lidl’s Statement
A spokesperson for Lidl remarked that the company does not take the dismissal of long-serving employees lightly. They reiterated their commitment to a strict policy against the consumption of unpaid stock, underscoring the necessity for consistent compliance throughout the organization.
This case highlights the significance of company policies in retail environments and the potential consequences of even minor infractions.
