‘Dehydrated’ worker dismissed for drinking 17p bottle of water upheld by tribunal

Julian Oxborough’s claim that he was simply thirsty and did not mean to steal a 17p bottle of water has been rejected by an employment tribunal, which found the supermarket’s decision to dismiss him for gross misconduct to be fair. The incident, which took place on July 19, 2024 (ET), and the subsequent disciplinary process have divided views over staff welfare and strict retail loss-prevention rules.

What happened at the checkout

On July 19, 2024 (ET), while serving customers at a store checkout, Oxborough accepted a bottle of water that a shopper had exchanged from a multipack because the single bottle lacked a barcode. The customer left the original bottle at the till after swapping it for a barcoded item. Later that shift, Oxborough drank from that discarded bottle and used it to top up his own drink while continuing to serve customers.

The following day a manager found the bottle near the till and, after reviewing CCTV footage, invited Oxborough to a meeting and suspended him pending an investigation into alleged gross misconduct. During the inquiry Oxborough said he had been dehydrated, felt unwell and had made his personal squash too concentrated to drink. He said he believed the abandoned multipack bottle could be written off and that he had no dishonest intent.

When asked whether he had paid for the water, Oxborough conceded: "No, I think I may have forgot or can't actually remember taking it. " He told the tribunal he was rushing at the end of his shift to catch a bus and had not followed the write-off process. He later described his dismissal as "a huge overreaction. " The worker also cited stress, tiredness, heat, and health concerns as factors in his actions.

Tribunal decision and employer position

The employment tribunal in Southampton heard that the area manager responsible for the disciplinary process found Oxborough’s accounts inconsistent about whether he intended to pay or have the item written off. The manager also questioned why he had not simply used tap water and noted that Oxborough had four days after the incident to come forward voluntarily but had not done so.

The tribunal concluded there was no assurance the conduct would not be repeated and that the employer had followed a full disciplinary process. Employment Judge Yallop dismissed Oxborough’s claims, including unfair dismissal, upholding the decision to summarily dismiss him for gross misconduct.

The case highlights the tension between rigid retail policies on unpaid stock and individual circumstances such as employee health and access to refreshments. The employer maintained that a consistent zero-tolerance approach to the consumption of unpaid stock is necessary to store operations and to ensure clear rules are followed.

Wider implications for staff welfare and policy

Employment specialists note this type of case often turns on whether dismissal was a proportionate response in light of an employee’s record, the explanations offered and whether reasonable alternatives to dismissal were explored. Oxborough had worked at the store for more than a decade, a fact he cited in arguing the sanction was unduly harsh.

At the same time, employers point to the need to deter internal theft and to apply rules consistently to protect margins and fairness among staff. This judgment affirms that, when processes are followed and an employer can show inconsistency or lack of believable explanation, tribunals may find dismissal justified even in low-value incidents.

The ruling leaves open broader questions for employers about how to balance firm loss-prevention policies with visible and accessible measures to protect staff wellbeing, such as easier access to free drinking water and clearer guidance on how employees should record or write off abandoned items during busy shifts.