Border Guard Loses Unfair Dismissal Case Over Company Car Use
An employment tribunal ruled against a Border Force officer sacked for unauthorized deviations from his route to visit his dying father and drop off dog medication.
A Border Force officer has lost an unfair dismissal case after being terminated for using a company car for personal errands, including visiting his terminally ill father and dropping off dog medication.
Alexander Casteel, who worked at Glasgow Airport, was found to have made three deviations from his scheduled routes while using a company vehicle. The first diversion, in March 2025, involved a ten-minute stop at his daughter's house to drop off medication while traveling from Glasgow to Birmingham. Later, in July 2025, while on a training course and staying in Runcorn, Cheshire, Casteel made two further diversions to Chester, an 18-mile journey. These included a 40-minute diversion and a 90-minute diversion to visit his father in a care home.
These deviations, which totaled over two hours and approximately 80 miles, were detected through the vehicle's telematics system. Casteel had not sought permission for these detours. Following an investigation, his actions were deemed gross misconduct, leading to his dismissal.
Casteel initiated an unfair dismissal claim, arguing that his dismissal was unjust. He stated that the diversions were minor and that he would have sought retrospective permission had he not felt bullied by colleagues. However, an employment tribunal in Glasgow rejected his claim.
Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland found that it was reasonable for Casteel's line manager, Gary Ollerton, to request an explanation for the route deviations. The judge noted that these stops did not constitute allegations until Casteel could not provide a business-related reason. The tribunal emphasized that as a civil servant, Casteel was expected to uphold values of integrity, honesty, objectivity, and impartiality. He was aware, or should have been aware, that using an official vehicle for personal reasons was prohibited by policy, and doing so without authorization meant he would not be insured and could be committing a criminal offense.
The UK Border Force held a reasonable belief that Casteel had driven an official vehicle for unauthorized purposes on three separate occasions. The tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss him.