The catalyst for this case was an email received from a customer, asking to change an appointment. The claimant felt that the customer had previously been rude on the phone. The claimant intended to forward an email about the change of appointment to a colleague along with the message, “Hi Karl, can you change this… he’s a t**t so it doesn’t matter if you can’t.” By mistake, the email was sent to the customer instead.

The Facts

Shortly after the email was sent, the customer’s wife rang and asked the claimant, “Is there any reason why you called my husband a t**t?”. The claimant apologised profusely and a call back with their manager was arranged. The claimant reported all this to their manager, who said it was alright and that they would deal with it.

The customer threatened to go to the press and social media, and was told an investigation would be carried out and they would be told the outcome.

A disciplinary hearing took place, and the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant asked to appeal, but this was denied.

Employment Tribunal:

The ET was critical of the approach taken by the respondent’s witnesses and found them to be “unsatisfactory in their evidence”. This included misleading the ET on the facts leading to the claimant’s dismissal by attempting to “paint a picture of a proper disciplinary process, which had simply not taken place”.

What happens if I don't follow the proper procedures to dismiss?

What is SOSR?

What do I have to do for a gross misconduct investigation?

The same manager acted as investigator, disciplinary officer and appeal decision-maker.

The claimant was not given a proper opportunity to be accompanied or to postpone the hearing until they had had time to find a companion.

During the adjournment in the disciplinary hearing, and immediately before dismissing the claimant, the manager discussed the case in detail with the business owner, despite the fact that they should have been removed from this process so that they could hear an appeal at a later date. The claimant was then denied their right of appeal.

The ET held that “the disciplinary process and dismissal were a sham designed to placate the customer”. The claimant was, therefore, unfairly dismissed and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5484.74.

Takeaway Points

This case is a catalogue of what not to do. The employer failed in their responsibilities throughout the process. The need to placate a customer is potentially a fair reason for dismissal under SOSR but only when the proper process has been followed.