Employer’s Hardline Anti-Corruption Policy Passes Legal Test

Many businesses, particularly those that deal with governmental authorities, sensibly have anti-corruption policies in place. One such policy came under close analysis in an employment case concerning a golfing trip provided to a public official.

A senior employee of a software company…

Nov 18, 2021

Pexels pixabay 274133 1024x711

Many businesses, particularly those that deal with governmental authorities, sensibly have anti-corruption policies in place. One such policy came under close analysis in an employment case concerning a golfing trip provided to a public official.

A senior employee of a software company was dismissed for gross misconduct after he authorised payment of the cost of the overseas trip taken by a senior official in a government agency. He subsequently launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, but his unfair dismissal complaint was rejected.

Ruling on his challenge to that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that it was accepted that he did not authorise the payment with a view to achieving a gain or undue influence. There was no suggestion that he had intentionally set out to do something improper. He viewed the trip, on which the official was accompanied by one of the company’s sales managers, as a networking opportunity and a chance to build a rapport with a customer.

Rejecting his appeal, however, the EAT found that the payment was unauthorised within the meaning of the company’s anti-corruption policy. The trip was paid for in order to obtain or retain the agency’s business as an important client. The policy set a precautionary standard and its spirit and purpose was to ensure that employees avoided situations that gave even the appearance of impropriety.

Despite the absence of any corrupt intent on the employee’s part, it was not perverse of the ET to find that the policy had been breached. He had felt uncomfortable about authorising such a substantial payment and should either have refrained from doing so, explored the matter more fully or sought advice from the company’s legal department. He was aware that there was a potential problem and, in failing to take any of those courses, had acted in wilful disregard of the policy.

Given the potentially catastrophic reputational and other damage that could arise if it committed, or was suspected of committing, a breach of anti-bribery legislation, the company was entitled to take a hard line. The dismissal decision thus lay within the range of reasonable responses open to the company. There was no procedural unfairness in the internal disciplinary process and the ET had given adequate reasons for rejecting the employee’s claim.

Disability Discrimination by Association – Guideline EAT Decision

It may sound surprising, but you need not necessarily be disabled in order to suffer disability discrimination. As one case showed, it is legally possible for a non-disabled employee to suffer discrimination by association with a disabled colleague. A sales manager was recruited by a company’s sales and marketing director, who subsequently became disabled due to cancer. After both men were dismissed, the manager launched proceedings, asserting that he had been subjected to direct disability…

Type 1 Diabetes Sufferer Wins Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

When employees disclose that they are suffering from a disability, it is an important moment that should always put employers on their mettle. The point was powerfully made by the case of a business development manager who was dismissed within days of his employer learning that he had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. After the man launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was significantly influenced by the employer’s knowledge of his disability. He had been…

Proving a Link Between Unfair Treatment and Discrimination Can Be Tough

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck driver. The man launched proceedings following two fractious confrontations between him and colleagues in the car park of the premises where he worked for a logistics company. He alleged that he was falsely and…