Background of the Incident
In June 2023, the employee was dismissed for gross misconduct. The employee worked for a curtain and blind company and, by mistake, sent a customer an email intended for a colleague. The customer had repeatedly complained about the curtains he had ordered and requested a refund. The employee wrote in the email: “Hi Karl, can you change this?… he’s a t**t so it doesn’t matter if you can’t”.
Instead of clicking the ‘forward’ button, she hit the ‘reply’ button incorrectly, so the customer received the email rather than her colleague.
Customer Reaction and Threats
The customer’s wife asked for compensation. After threatening to publicise the incident in the press and social media, she was told the matter would be investigated.
Flawed Investigation and Disciplinary Process
The company conducted an investigation and then a disciplinary hearing. However, no interviews were held with either the employee or the customer. Furthermore, the manager made no notes, and no written documentation of the decision was produced.
The customer had again contacted the firm, making more threats to publicise the matter and leave a poor review on Trustpilot. This prompted bosses to dismiss the employee.
Unfair Dismissal Ruling by Tribunal
While acknowledging “that the sending of the email was improper and blameworthy” the Tribunal found her dismissal to be unfair. The tribunal stated: “I am satisfied that had a fair procedure been followed, there is no chance the Claimant would have been dismissed”. “The disciplinary process was a sham designed to placate the customer”.
Employer’s Failure to Follow Proper Procedure
This decision highlights that even a very small employer with limited resources such as the one in this case is expected to follow a fair procedure before terminating an individual’s employment.
“In this case, there was a complete failure on the part of the employer to follow even a semblance of a fair procedure prior to reaching the decision to dismiss the claimant”.
Key Findings of the Tribunal
It appears from the Tribunal’s findings of fact that the company’s managing director had instructed the claimant’s manager to ‘get rid’ of the claimant. The tribunal took this as indicating that the decision to dismiss was a forgone conclusion before the disciplinary hearing. There had been no proper investigation into the allegations.
The tribunal held that the procedure followed by the employer in this case was a ‘sham’ designed to placate the customer. Furthermore, had a fair procedure been followed, there was no chance the claimant would have been dismissed.
