A warning, then it happened again: dismissing fairly for repeated conduct

An employee with over two years' service was, by most measures, competent at the job. The problem was everything around the job: persistent argumentativeness with the manager, refusal to follow reasonable instructions, and behaviour towards colleagues that had crossed from difficult into borderline bullying — including unwanted conduct that staff had begun reporting as harassment.

Cases like this rarely arrive as one clean incident. They arrive as an atmosphere: colleagues asking to change shifts, a manager who has stopped giving instructions because of the argument that follows, and a file with nothing in it.

The first problem: "attitude" is not a charge

The instinct is to frame it as "poor attitude" or "not living our values." Neither survives contact with a disciplinary hearing. Values only work as a charge when they are translated into specific, dated, evidenced behaviours: what was said, to whom, when, who witnessed it, and what instruction was refused.

So the investigation did exactly that. Statements were taken from the colleagues affected. Each incident was pinned to a date. The vague cloud of "difficult to work with" became a set of concrete allegations the employee could actually answer — which is what fairness requires, and what the ACAS Code expects.

The first hearing: a warning, not a dismissal

With over two years' service, the employee had full unfair dismissal rights, and the conduct — serious as the pattern was — sat below the gross misconduct line when taken incident by incident. A disciplinary hearing was held, the employee responded to each allegation, and a formal warning was issued, with the standards expected set out in writing and the consequences of repetition spelled out plainly.

Two months later: it happened again

Within two months, further conduct of the same character was reported. This is the moment employers most often get wrong, in one of two directions. Some do nothing — the warning becomes a piece of paper and the affected staff conclude that reporting achieves nothing. Others go straight to dismissal without process — "we've been through all this before" — and hand the employee a procedural unfair dismissal claim.

The right course is a fresh process: a new investigation into the new allegations, a new hearing, a new opportunity to respond. The live warning is not a shortcut past the process. It is what the new findings are weighed against at the end of it.

The outcome

The new allegations were upheld on the evidence. Considered alongside a live formal warning for the same character of conduct, the sanction was dismissal. The employee was informed in writing, with reasons, and offered the right of appeal.

Because each stage had been done properly — specific charges, evidenced investigation, a genuine first-stage sanction, and a full fresh process the second time — the decision stood on solid ground. And just as importantly, the colleagues who had reported the behaviour saw that reporting it had meant something.

What this case teaches

• Turn values into specifics. "Not meeting our values" convinces nobody; dated, witnessed behaviours do.
• Sanction proportionately the first time. The warning is what legitimises a later dismissal.
• Repeat conduct gets a full fresh process. A live warning raises the stakes; it never replaces the investigation.
• Protect the affected staff throughout. They are watching what the process is worth. Left unaddressed, this conduct becomes the employer's own harassment liability under the Equality Act and the new preventative duty.
• Write everything down as you go. The file you build in month one is the case you rely on in month three.