Tribunal backs dismissal of long-serving checkout worker over 17p water bottle

A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of Julian Oxborough, a supermarket checkout worker who lost his job after drinking a 17p bottle of water taken from a multipack during a shift on 19 July 2024 (ET). The employment judge found the employer’s decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was fair and dismissed Mr Oxborough’s claim of unfair dismissal at a hearing in October 2025 (ET).

Tribunal finds dismissal justified

The hearing concluded the employer had followed a proper investigatory and disciplinary procedure before summarily dismissing Mr Oxborough. CCTV footage showing him drinking from the bottle and refilling his own drink while serving customers formed a central part of the case presented to the tribunal. The disciplinary officer said the claimant’s account of events was inconsistent and that there was no reliable way to prevent a repeat of the conduct, leaving dismissal as the only viable outcome.

The judge accepted that-management evidence justified treating the incident as gross misconduct. That finding centered on the view that taking an item without paying or having it officially written off breached the employer’s clear rules and undermined the mutual trust required for continued employment.

Worker’s account and employer’s rationale

Mr Oxborough, who had worked at the same branch for more than a decade, told the tribunal he had been dehydrated, unwell and worried about his health when he drank from the bottle. He said he had not drunk from his own bottle because a concocted drink was too concentrated and that he had assumed the multipack bottle could be written off — a practice he believed he had seen before for single bottles in staff areas.

When questioned during the investigation, Mr Oxborough said he could not remember whether he had paid for the bottle and suggested he may have forgotten to have it written off while hurrying to finish his shift. He denied any intention to be dishonest and said he had been tired and under pressure, but the disciplinary officer found those explanations inconsistent and incomplete. Managers also questioned why Mr Oxborough had not simply used tap water to relieve his dehydration.

The employer maintained that the employee had been aware of store procedures and that the four days following the incident offered an opportunity for the claimant to come forward voluntarily, which did not occur. A company spokesperson said it did not take the decision lightly and had followed a thorough process in reaching the outcome.

Implications for workplace conduct and staff welfare

The case highlights the clash between strict loss-prevention policies and staff welfare concerns such as hydration during shifts. While the tribunal sided with the employer on procedural fairness and the gravity of the breach, the tribunal’s judgment also underscores how employers and staff need clear, consistently applied protocols for small-scale incidents that can quickly escalate into allegations of theft or gross misconduct.

For long-serving employees, the ruling serves as a reminder that tenure does not exempt staff from disciplinary rules. Employers may also take from the case the importance of ensuring accessible options for staff welfare — such as readily available tap water and clear, enforced procedures for write-offs or staff use of stock — alongside transparent disciplinary processes.

The phrase julian oxborough lidl dismissal has circulated in discussion about the judgment, reflecting broader public interest in how workplaces balance rule enforcement with staff well-being.