Is Dismissal a Reasonable Response? It All Depends on Context

When considering whether an employee’s misconduct justifies their dismissal, context is everything. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a warehouse operative who responded angrily on social media after she was laid off at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The…

Nov 09, 2022

Pexels nothing ahead 8296105 1024x683

When considering whether an employee’s misconduct justifies their dismissal, context is everything. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a warehouse operative who responded angrily on social media after she was laid off at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The woman and some of her colleagues were laid off, without pay, shortly before the first lockdown came into force. They formed a closed Facebook Messenger group on which disparaging comments were made about the company and members of its management team. She was later placed on furlough and, on her return to work, faced disciplinary proceedings. She was accused of bringing the company into disrepute and was ultimately dismissed.

Ruling on her unfair dismissal claim, the ET noted that some of her comments were profane and intemperate and that a potentially fair reason for dismissal existed. The manager who made the dismissal decision genuinely believed that her social media activity amounted to misconduct. Given the onset of the pandemic, the employer may have had little choice but to lay off staff.

In upholding her complaint, however, the ET noted that she was a relatively long-serving employee with an otherwise exemplary disciplinary record. She had not previously displayed attitude problems and her comments were made in a closed group, outside working hours. She had no forewarning that they would be disclosed to her employer or viewed as constituting misconduct.

When viewed in the context of the pandemic and the unheralded decision to lay her off, her comments amounted to little more than venting, or a workplace moan against management, at an emotional and stressful time for all concerned. The ET also identified procedural flaws in the investigation and disciplinary process. The amount of her compensation – which would be reduced by 10 per cent to take account of her own contributory fault – would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.

Service Charges Dispute Focuses on Report of ‘Intolerable’ Fire Risk

Tenants are only obliged to pay service charges that have been reasonably incurred. That principle was the focus of a guideline case concerning two apartment blocks which, according to an expert report, posed an intolerable fire risk. Previous fire inspections of the blocks had uncovered no serious problems so that the report, which found combustible materials in their external walls, came as a bolt from the blue. The landlord’s response was to place a 24-hour waking watch on the blocks as an…

ET Failed to Consider Whether Rejecting Claim Was in Interests of Justice

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that, when rejecting a woman’s claim because the name of the respondent on the claim form did not match the name of the employer on the early conciliation certificate, the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law in failing to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The woman had been dismissed from her job as a sales associate. She considered her dismissal to be unfair and/or discriminatory. She received an early…

Treating Every Employee in the Same Way May Itself Be Discriminatory

Anti-discrimination laws are often viewed as requiring employers to treat all their staff in the same way. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, the positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to cater for disabled workers’ needs may require them to be treated more favourably than their colleagues. The case concerned a quality controller in a food packing plant who was disabled by back pain and depression. He worked 12-hour night shifts in the refrigerated plant and was on…