Gousto worker fired after eating peanuts on factory floor, tribunal hears

Barbara Lisowska was dismissed after CCTV footage showed her eating peanuts on the factory floor at Gousto’s Warrington plant, a tribunal in Manchester heard, in a case that hinged on how far a food safety rule can be stretched before it becomes gross misconduct.

Lisowska, 65, was fired in May 2024 after an incident on 12 April 2024 that the tribunal said endangered customers with food allergies. Gousto, the recipe-box company, operates food packing factories in Warrington and Lincolnshire, where allergen controls are central to the business because even a small lapse can create serious risk for customers.

The employment tribunal heard that Lisowska had taken the peanuts from the factory floor and eaten them despite the company treating the act as a serious breach. In a food production setting, that distinction matters. What may look like a minor on-the-job snack to an outside observer can be treated as a safety breach, a theft issue, and a customer-protection problem all at once.

Lisowska challenged her dismissal and said she could not eat the peanuts because she had dentures. But the tribunal was told that CCTV showed her eating the nuts at the plant in Warrington, Cheshire. An employment judge at a Manchester hearing later rejected her unfair dismissal claim.

The ruling places a familiar tension in sharp relief: employers in tightly controlled factories often rely on rigid rules to protect customers, while workers can see the punishment as extreme when the underlying conduct appears momentary and low-level. In this case, Gousto framed the incident as a threat to people with allergies, and the tribunal accepted that the company had grounds to treat it as gross misconduct.

That is the boundary being tested in cases like Lisowska’s. Food manufacturers have strong reasons to enforce absolute standards around peanuts, allergens and unauthorized eating. But the tribunal outcome also shows how quickly a single act on a factory floor can end a long working life, especially when the employer argues that customer safety comes first and the worker’s explanation does not overcome video evidence.