Tribunal upholds dismissal after checkout worker drank 17p bottle of water

A tribunal has rejected an unfair dismissal claim brought by Julian Oxborough, who was dismissed after drinking a 17p bottle of water while working at a supermarket checkout. The hearing found the employer’s decision to summarily dismiss him for gross misconduct was within reasonable bounds, after an investigation into the incident on July 19, 2024 (ET).

What happened at the till

The incident took place at a Wincanton store, where Oxborough had worked for more than a decade. A customer wanted to buy a single bottle taken from a multipack that lacked a barcode. The customer swapped that bottle for one with a barcode and left the original at the checkout.

Later that day, while continuing to serve customers, Oxborough drank from the abandoned bottle and used it to top up his own drink. The next day a manager discovered the bottle beside the till, reviewed CCTV footage and raised concerns that store policy might have been breached. Oxborough was suspended pending a disciplinary investigation into allegations of gross misconduct.

During the investigative meeting he said he felt dehydrated during his shift and was worried about his health, and that he had not drunk from his personal bottle because he had made his squash too strong. He also said he believed the multipack bottle might be written off and pointed to previous instances where single bottles had been seen in staff areas without receipts. He said he may have forgotten to have the bottle written off or could not remember taking it, and insisted he had no intention of being dishonest.

Tribunal findings and rationale

The disciplinary officer, an area manager who conducted the hearing, found inconsistencies in Oxborough’s account—particularly over whether he intended to purchase the water or have it written off. She questioned why he had not obtained tap water instead, and noted he had an opportunity to come forward within four days after the incident but did not do so.

Given those inconsistencies and the worker’s admission that the action was wrong in hindsight, the manager concluded there was insufficient assurance the behaviour would not recur. The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. At a subsequent employment hearing in October 2025 (ET), the judge supported that finding and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal’s decision underscores that employers may lawfully dismiss long-serving staff where they genuinely conclude procedures have been breached and there is a risk of repetition — particularly after a formal, documented investigation.

Lessons for staff and employers

The case highlights tensions between staff health concerns and strict adherence to loss-prevention rules. Employees are expected to follow clear procedures for write-offs or to seek alternative, permitted sources of water during a shift. Employers, meanwhile, are reminded that policies need to be consistently applied and communicated, and that reasonable accommodations for staff welfare (such as accessible tap water or clear written-off processes) can reduce the risk of similar disputes.

For Oxborough, the tribunal found the employer’s disciplinary process followed a proper course and that dismissal was not unfair. The outcome will be noted by employers and staff alike as an example of how small actions can have major consequences when they intersect with established loss-prevention policies and disciplinary standards.

Searches related to julian oxborough lidl dismissal have spurred broader discussion about workplace hydration, procedural clarity and proportionality in disciplinary responses, especially where long service and health concerns are cited as part of an employee’s explanation.