Employee dismissal backfires: worker wins unfair dismissal claim against employer after being fired for insulting a customer.
A recent Employment Tribunal case has drawn attention to the importance of correct disciplinary procedures, after a worker who was summarily dismissed for calling a customer a t*** wins nearly £5,500 for unfair dismissal (Ms M. Jones v Vale Curtains and Blinds).
Background
The Claimant, Ms Jones, worked as a part-time administrator at Vale Curtains and Blinds, a local supplier of made-to-measure curtains, having joined the company in May 2021.
In June 2023, Ms Jones received an email from a customer who had made repeated complaints about their curtain installation. Ms Jones intended to forward the customer’s email to the company’s installation manager, Mr Gibbons, writing in an email: “Hi Karl – Can you change this? … he’s a t*** so it doesn’t matter if you can’t.” Ms Jones clicked “Reply” rather than “Forward”, sending the offensive message directly to the customer.
Ms Jones received an angry phone call from the customer’s wife, who asked why she had used offensive language towards her husband. The customer’s wife insisted on speaking to Ms Jones’ supervisor, Ms Smith, who apologised to the customer and advised that Ms Jones would be disciplined accordingly. The customer demanded compensation, but Ms Smith advised that the curtains would not be supplied for free.
The situation escalated after the customer threatened to leave a negative review and publish the incident on social media and in the press, at which point Ms Jones offered to personally refund the customer £500. The company management viewed the issue as sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary hearing, and the Managing Director thereafter took steps to dismiss Ms Jones.
The Dismissal Process
The company initiated a disciplinary process that Ms Jones argued was biased and predetermined. Key points from the tribunal’s findings include:
- Lack of Proper Investigation
The tribunal found that the company’s investigation into the matter was inadequate. Ms Jones was not given a fair chance to present her side, and the decision to dismiss her was made hastily, without thorough fact-checking.
- Sham Disciplinary Process
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal process was conducted to appease the customer rather than to address the situation fairly. Notably, Ms. Smith, who was involved in both the investigation and the disciplinary process, admitted that the decision to “get rid” of Ms Jones had been made early on.
- Breach of Procedure
Ms Jones was not given sufficient time to prepare for her disciplinary hearing, was denied representation, and was not adequately informed about the company’s disciplinary procedures.
Tribunal’s Judgment
The tribunal ruled that Ms Jones had been unfairly dismissed, awarding her a total of £5,484.74, comprising a basic award and a compensatory award. While the tribunal acknowledged that Ms Jones had contributed to her dismissal by sending the inappropriate email, they found the company’s response was disproportionate, and a proper investigation could have led to alternative outcomes.
Lessons for Employers
The case serves as an important reminder to employers about their obligation to conduct fair dismissal procedures:
- Thorough Investigation
Before dismissing an employee, employers must conduct a fair and complete investigation. - Neutral Decision Making
Decision-makers should not be involved in both the investigation and the disciplinary process to ensure fairness. - Employee Rights
Employees must be given adequate notice, representation, and access to the company’s disciplinary procedures.
Conclusion
The tribunal’s decision highlights the critical importance of transparency, fairness, and proper procedure in handling dismissals. Employers must ensure that any action taken against employees is supported by a thorough investigation and complies with legal and procedural requirements.
By failing to follow key principles, the employer not only lost the case but also damaged trust within their workforce. Employers should view this case as a cautionary example, and prioritise clear, structured disciplinary procedures to avoid similar outcomes.
For further information on matters raised in this article, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.
“Herrington Carmichael offers legal advice to UK and International businesses as well as individuals and families. Rated as a ‘Leading Firm 2023’ by the legal directory Legal 500 and listed in The Times ‘Best Law Firms 2023’. Herrington Carmichael has offices in London, Farnborough, Reading, and Ascot.”
Please visit the firm link to site