White v T.P.M. Management - Unfair Dismissal Lessons for Small Employers

An employment tribunal has found that a residential management company unfairly and wrongfully dismissed its only full-time employee, a steward with more than 20 years' service, for gross misconduct over fire safety. The company's reconsideration application was refused on 29 September 2026, and the judgment stands.

The employer was not careless about the process. It brought in external HR consultants, held an investigation, a disciplinary hearing and an appeal. It lost because the reasoning behind the dismissal rested on a role it had never clearly defined, training it had never given, and an assumption of dishonesty it could not prove.

The judgments in Mr D White v T.P.M. Management Ltd are published on GOV.UK. This case study sets out the facts, the findings and the policy lessons for any small employer.

The Case at a Glance

Point	Detail
Employer	A residential management company run by a board of flat owners, with one full-time employee
Employee	Steward from May 2004 to February 2025
Reason given	Four counts of gross misconduct linked to fire risk assessment actions
Outcome	Unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal upheld; minimum wage claim dismissed
Judgment	6 June 2026, sent to the parties 25 June 2026
Reconsideration	Refused 29 September 2026
Award	To be decided at a separate remedy hearing

The Facts

Mr Dale White worked as steward at a residential complex in Southsea from 4 May 2004, living on site. The tribunal found the role had developed informally over many years: caretaking, dealing with residents, minor maintenance, contacting contractors and reporting to the board. It had historically been lightly supervised.

His contract described him as steward, with duties including checking smoke and fire alarms. From about 2013 he also completed in-house fire risk assessment forms on his own initiative, sometimes describing himself as health and safety officer or building manager.

In 2021 and again in November 2022 the board asked him to arrange a professional fire risk assessment. The 2022 report rated the overall risk as tolerable but listed recommendations, including Priority A items to be completed within one month.

A New Board and a New Approach

From late 2023 a new chair and board members brought a more structured, professional approach to governance. By May 2024 the company had engaged an external HR and health and safety provider, and a director was later asked to audit progress against the 2022 assessment.

On 18 July 2024 the chair asked Mr White for an update on the recommendations. He replied on 20 July 2024 that "all priority A items have been dealt with". The later audit found that several Priority A items were still outstanding.

During 2024 there were attempts to get him to complete online health and safety training, but the tribunal found that access problems were raised and not resolved. He did not receive proper fire safety training before his dismissal.

Suspension and Dismissal

Mr White raised a grievance about his treatment in November 2024; it was not upheld. On 2 January 2025 he was suspended, in a meeting he found humiliating because of its public setting.

External HR consultants ran the investigation and disciplinary hearing. The allegations were that he had failed to make sure the 2022 recommendations were implemented, failed to report outstanding items, deliberately and fraudulently misled the board in his July 2024 email, and so endangered residents.

He was dismissed with immediate effect on 10 February 2025 for four counts of gross misconduct. His appeal, also run through the external consultants, was rejected on 24 March 2025.

The Findings

Employment Judge Winfield accepted that the board genuinely believed Mr White had committed serious misconduct, and that it had grounds for concern. The July 2024 email was inaccurate and fire safety was plainly important.

But the tribunal found that dismissal for gross misconduct fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It identified four connected failings the employer and its advisers did not grapple with.

• Role ambiguity. The disciplinary reasoning turned a long-standing, informal practical role into something close to sole responsibility for implementing the fire risk assessment, which the tribunal called "an important analytical error".
• No training. The employer held him to compliance-based expectations without having provided clear fire safety training.
• The employer's own systems. Its arrangements for tracking and monitoring the 2022 recommendations were weak, and as the responsible person under fire safety law the company kept primary responsibility.
• Inaccuracy is not dishonesty. The email was inaccurate but was not proved to be a deliberate lie, and the investigation did not properly consider the realistic alternative of confusion or overstatement.

The tribunal noted that the process was "not a sham": there was an investigation, a hearing and an appeal. But the appeal "substantially repeated the same flawed analysis", and the board adopted the external HR recommendation rather than independently reframing the matter.

Weighing long and previously clean service, the absence of training and the ambiguity of the role, the tribunal concluded that a reasonable employer would have used "correction, warning, closer supervision or some lesser sanction rather than immediate dismissal".

Wrongful Dismissal

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. Making its own assessment of the conduct, the tribunal found that the proved failings were serious shortcomings in performance, judgment and communication, not gross misconduct, so the company was not entitled to dismiss without notice.

Minimum Wage

The minimum wage claim failed. The employer had reviewed the steward's pay against the accommodation offset in 2024, found an underpayment of £822.28, raised his salary and paid the shortfall in July 2024. The tribunal was not satisfied that any wider underpayment was proved or presented in time.

The Reconsideration

The company applied for reconsideration, arguing among other things that insufficient weight had been given to its size and resources. The tribunal refused, saying the judgment "did not impose the standards of a large employer" and that the defects were "basic matters of clarity, investigation, reasoning and proportionality".

The Award

Liability has been decided and confirmed. Compensation for unfair dismissal and notice pay will be decided at a separate remedy hearing, and we will update this page when the remedy judgment is published.

The dismissal took effect before 1 January 2027, so the existing compensation cap applies to the compensatory award. For dismissals from 1 January 2027 that cap is removed, as our six-month qualifying period guide explains.

Lessons for Employers

Each failing in this case maps to a document or process a small employer can put in place.

1. Write Down Who Does What

Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the responsible person keeps the legal duties, and article 18 requires competent persons to be appointed to assist. If you rely on an employee for fire safety tasks, say so in a job description and a fire safety policy, with clear limits and a named person above them.

2. Train Before You Hold People to a Standard

Article 21 requires adequate safety training. More broadly, you cannot reasonably dismiss someone for failing to meet a standard you never trained them for. Record what training was given and when; our page on learning and development policies covers the records.

3. Track Risk Assessment Actions at Board Level

A fire risk assessment is only useful if someone tracks its recommendations to completion. Keep an action log with owners and deadlines, review it at board meetings, and ask for evidence rather than a one-line assurance.

4. Investigate the Alternative Explanation

Where an allegation includes dishonesty, the investigation must look properly at whether the person was mistaken, confused or over-optimistic. Your disciplinary procedure should say that investigators consider alternative explanations and record why they reject them.

5. Check External Advice and Make the Appeal Independent

External HR support does not transfer responsibility for the decision. Decision-makers should test the analysis they are given, and the appeal should look at the case afresh. The Acas Code of Practice is the benchmark tribunals use.

6. Match the Sanction to the Whole Picture

Gross misconduct can justify dismissal for a first offence, but the label does not make dismissal inevitable. Long service, a clean record, unclear expectations and lack of training all point towards a warning and closer supervision.

7. Suspend Privately and Neutrally

The suspension meeting was not decisive here, but a public setting caused distress and became part of the evidence. Suspend in private, explain that it is a neutral act, and confirm it in writing.

8. Review Pay Where Accommodation Is Provided

The employer did one thing well: it checked minimum wage compliance, including the accommodation offset, and corrected an underpayment. Build that check into your annual pay review whenever the minimum wage rises.

Why This Matters More From 2027

From 1 January 2027, employees can claim unfair dismissal after six months rather than two years, and the cap on the compensatory award is removed. Since 1 October 2026 most claims can also be brought within six months rather than three.

A small employer with an informal set-up will face more claims, from staff with shorter service, with higher potential awards. The basics in this case are the cheapest protection available.

Disciplinary Policy and Procedure Writers

We write disciplinary procedures, job descriptions, fire safety policies and training records for small employers, written around how your business actually runs, from £65 per document. They sit within our HR policies and procedures and health and safety policies services.

If your disciplinary procedure or role descriptions have not been reviewed in years, our policy review service will check them against the lessons from this case. Get a quote to start.