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.

Exposure to Toxic Substances at Work – Guideline Court of Appeal Ruling

Exposure to toxic substances at work is often cited as a possible cause of diseases developed later in life. However, as an important Court of Appeal ruling made plain, establishing the plausibility of such causal links may not, by itself, be enough to succeed in an occupational injury claim. The case concerned a man who developed Parkinson’s disease after working for an industrial employer for almost 40 years. After he launched a personal injury claim, a judge found that he had been exposed on…

Highway Authority Not Responsible for Catastrophic M25 Lorry Crash

Those involved in catastrophic road accidents frequently point the finger of blame at potholes or other defects in the road surface. As one case showed, however, it can be an uphill task to pin responsibility for such accidents on highway authorities. The case concerned an accident which befell an articulated lorry whilst works were in progress to convert a stretch of the M25 into a smart motorway. The lorry was using the hard shoulder when its wheels strayed onto the verge and over a filter…

Pregnancy Discrimination – Sacked Bar Manager Receives Compensation

Employers who dismiss personnel or otherwise treat them unfavourably for reasons related to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity can expect severe financial and reputational consequences. That was certainly so in the case of a loyal and committed bar manager who was pregnant when she was sacked without notice. Her employer asserted that she was dismissed for misconduct. However, an Employment Tribunal (ET) concluded that her pregnancy, and her absences from work related to her condition, were a…