What a Sausage Roll Taught Us About Fair Dismissal

Last week, the case of Duffy v London North Eastern Railway (LNER) made waves in the press for an unusual reason: a train hospitality worker dismissed after allegedly serving first-class passengers sausage rolls taken from a bin. While the story captured widespread media attention for its unusual details, the tribunal’s decision offers important lessons for HR professionals about misconduct dismissals and disability discrimination claims.

The Facts

Mr Duffy was dismissed for gross misconduct after CCTV footage showed him reheating discarded food and serving it to customers. He challenged the decision, claiming unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, arguing his actions were linked to his depression. Both claims were rejected.

Misconduct Dismissals: What the Law Says

Tribunals don’t ask if they would have made the same decision – they ask if the employer acted reasonably. The well-established Burchell test applies:

1. Did the employer genuinely believe the employee committed misconduct?
2. Were there reasonable grounds for that belief?
3. Was the investigation reasonable in the circumstances?

Finally, was dismissal within the range of reasonable responses for a reasonable employer?

Why LNER’s Process Passed

LNER reviewed CCTV, gathered witness statements, and heard Mr Duffy’s explanation. They concluded he breached food safety rules and risked reputational harm. Given the seriousness of the conduct, dismissal for gross misconduct was deemed reasonable. The unfair dismissal claim failed.

Disability Discrimination: Section 15 Explained

To succeed under Section 15, an employee must show:

• They were treated unfavourably because of something arising from their disability.
• The employer can defend the claim by proving the action was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Crucially, there must be a clear link between the disability and the conduct.

Why the Claim Failed

The tribunal accepted Mr Duffy had anxiety and depression and that LNER knew this. However, it found no evidence that serving food from a bin was linked to his condition. Even if it had been, dismissal would likely have been justified to protect customer safety and business reputation.

HR Takeaways

• Stick to process: Even when facts are sensational, the legal tests don’t change.
• Investigate thoroughly: A fair and documented process is your best defence.
• Evidence matters: Section 15 claims need a real causal link.
• Legitimate aims count: Safety and reputation can justify dismissal.

Final thought: This case isn’t about sausage rolls – it’s about the importance of consistency and compliance in HR decision-making.

Need Support with Complex HR Issues?

At Altum HR, we help businesses navigate tricky situations like misconduct dismissals and discrimination claims with confidence.

• Expert advice tailored to your organisation
• Practical solutions that protect your business and your people

Contact us today to ensure your HR processes are robust and legally compliant.