In late 2023, a long-serving warehouse team member at Tesco raised a workplace concern in a 12-page grievance, ultimately ending the meeting by calling his manager “useless.” Rather than resolving the underlying issues, this moment led to a final written warning, which then escalated to summary dismissal on appeal. Management cited the seriousness of the written grievance and his refusal to apologize as justification.

Was the Punishment Fair?

When the case came before the Workplace Relations Commission, it recognized that Tesco followed the correct disciplinary steps, but concluded the punishment was unjustifiably harsh. While the comment was deemed inappropriate, the Commission ruled that termination was disproportionate, especially considering the employee’s 17 years of service. Instead of full reinstatement with back pay, the Commission directed Tesco to:

• Re-engage the worker within four weeks in a suitable role (not necessarily the same one).

• Keep a final written warning on file for 12 months.

• Treat the time since dismissal as unpaid suspension, not termination.

What This Means for Employers

This ruling drives home a critical point: disciplinary action must be proportionate to the offense. A fair process isn’t enough if the outcome is overly severe. Employers should ensure:

• Policies are applied consistently and transparently.

• Escalating from a warning to dismissal is a measured and justified response, not reactionary.

• Long-standing employees are evaluated within the context of their service record.