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.

Decision-Maker’s Knowledge is Key in Whistleblowing Claim

Where an employee who has made a protected disclosure is dismissed, can the dismissal be unfair if the decision-maker is merely aware that the employee has made a disclosure, or is some understanding of the details of the disclosure required? That question was answered in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling. A man had raised various concerns relating to the management style of his employer’s CEO. A meeting took place in which he claimed that issues raised in another employee’s exit…

Hotel Owner Ruled Liable Following Guest’s Fatal Fall from Window

Property occupiers are obliged to take reasonable care for the safety of their visitors, but does that duty extend to those who choose to take obvious risks? The Court of Appeal addressed that issue in a guideline case concerning a hotel guest who fell out of a window to his death. The man was staying on the hotel’s second floor after attending a wedding when he fell nine metres from the sash window in the early hours of the morning. His widow sought compensation from the hotel’s owner under…

High Court Delves into Social History to Resolve Widow’s Asbestos Claim

Many people are still being carried off by merciless cancer due to asbestos exposure in the dim and distant past. As a High Court ruling showed, it is the very passage of time that makes it so hard for their loved ones to obtain compensation. The case concerned a former plasterer who died, aged 72, from mesothelioma – an incurable form of cancer that commonly takes decades to develop and can be caused by breathing in a single asbestos fibre. His widow launched a personal injury claim against a…