Female HGV driver loses tribunal case after being sacked for being repeatedly late – saying she can not begin at 9 due to her ‘erratic sleep sample’

A female delivery driver has lost an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal when she was sacked for being late – after insisting she could not start work before 9am because of her ‘erratic sleep pattern’.

HGV driver Ellie Gresley was fired from her job at Stericycle, in Aylesford, Kent, after repeatedly failing to arrive on time and becoming involved in two road collisions for which she was ‘at fault’, a tribunal heard.

Ms Gresley, who claimed she was plagued by sleep troubles which meant she could not start her rounds early like her colleagues did, had her start time pushed back from 7am to 9am – but on some days she did not turn up to work until 10.30am.

The driver, who worked for SRCL Ltd – known as Stericycle – sued the waste management company for unfair dismissal and various discrimination claims.

But an employment judge dismissed the filing and reminded her that some drivers at the company start as early as 4am.

The tribunal was told that Ms Gresley started working for SRCL in October 2021 as a service driver and was sacked in December 2023.

She was referred to the role by her father, Daniel, who still works at the firm and said she began working ‘with enthusiasm’.

Ms Gresley claimed at the tribunal that she was disabled as a result of having ADHD, autism, dyslexia, anxiety and sleeping problems.

At the time of her employment she said she had undiagnosed insomnia, which was confirmed in August 2025.

But Employment Judge Suraj Sudra ruled that as she had not been diagnosed with insomnia at the time, and letters from her GP referred to her anxiety worsening after she was sacked, these disabilities did not apply.

Ms Gresley also told her employers that she looked after a child until he went to school at around 8:45am and then went on to work around 45 hours a week, something the judge said showed she would be awake and able to carry out tasks at this time.

Her job involved driving a 3.5-tonne truck to collect waste from clients before returning to the Kent site for disposal.

However her employment ‘did not get off to a flying start’ and she was called into a probation meeting in February 2022 to discuss accidents she had had at work.

She agreed that she would have no further ‘blameworthy accidents’ in the next three months and she would not start later than 7am.

However her performance did not improve and she was caught starting some shifts after 10am – which she put down to difficulties falling asleep.

As a result it was agreed that she could start at 8am and could take her work van home so she would not need to travel in to the site first thing in the morning.

However her service co-ordinator, Joshua Hall, raised concerns that she was still not starting until around 10am.

It was found that between January 23 and January 30, 2023, she did not start her shifts earlier than 9:30am and some days as late as 10:30am – which made her managers concerned about how this would affect customers. The following week it was found that the earliest she started was 9:45am.

An occupational health report found that she suffered with an ‘erratic sleep pattern’ and her start time may need to be adjusted.

In February 2023 she lodged a grievance against her employer, claiming she was being discriminated against, but it was not upheld. She did not appeal the decision.

The following month whilst driving the tribunal was told Ms Gresley failed to check if the road ahead was clear and was involved in a ‘blameworthy accident’ – for which she was given a written warning.

Shortly afterwards she was signed off work for several weeks, and on her return she agreed to start between 8am and 9am, and would tell a colleague if she was ‘occasionally’ late. However due to her continued lateness she was given a final written warning.

Ms Gresley was then found to be at fault for another crash in August 2023, leading to her being sacked in December of that year.

Taking the case to tribunal, Ms Gresley brought claims of disability, age and sex discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages.

All the claims were unsuccessful and dismissed.

Judge Sudra said: ‘I find that [Ms Gresley’s] evidence was honest but at times misconceived and entrenched.

‘One illustrative example was [Ms Gresley’s] persistent refusal to accept that employees of [SRCL Limited] had an expected start time or, at least, a latest expected start time.

‘[Ms Gresley] was also resolute that because Mr Hall was not her official line-manager he had no authority to query her lateness or time-keeping.

‘Apart from issues with sleeping Mr Hall was unaware of any of [Ms Gresley’s] other conditions.

‘Therefore, he did not tell her that whilst she may have medical conditions she still needed to begin her shift at 8.00am nor did he tell her that if she did not begin her shift by 8.00am he would look at other work options for her.

‘The majority of businesses on [Ms Gresley’s] route had their business hours between 9.00am and 5.00pm.

‘If Mr Ackerman (her service manager) had agreed that [Ms Gresley] could start work between 10.00am and 1.00pm that would have put in jeopardy [Ms Gresley’s] ability to successfully make all the collections on her route which in turn, would have placed [SRCL Limited] in breach of its service level agreements with customers.

‘There was no evidence before me that [Ms Gresley] has a sleeping impairment or sleeping condition which would qualify as a disability.

‘[SRCL Limited] has established the proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims which were to ensure service delivery and business continuity; and to uphold high standards of road safety to protect the health and safety of both [SRCL Limited’s] drivers and other road users.

‘[SRCL Limited’s] treatment of [Ms Gresley] was not connected to difficulty in sleeping or difficulty in [Ms Gresley] explaining herself and therefore, this allegation is dismissed.’