Administrator Wins Unfair Dismissal Claim Against Vale Curtains and Blinds

The tribunal found that Ms M Jones worked as a part-time administrator for Vale Curtains and Blinds from 6 May 2021 until 19 June 2023.

The tribunal heard that on 14 June 2023, Ms Jones accidentally sent an email to a customer instead of forwarding it to Mr Karl Gibbons. In the email, she used an offensive term to describe the customer. The tribunal found that Ms Jones apologised to the customer's wife, but she later refused to apologise to the customer directly.

The tribunal heard that the customer's wife threatened to go to the press and social media. The customer also contacted the owner and managing director, Mr Dave Rist, directly and threatened to leave a poor review on Trustpilot.

The tribunal heard that Mr Phil Johnson told Mrs Jacqueline Smith that she should "get rid of" Ms Jones. A disciplinary hearing was held on 19 June 2023, and Ms Jones was dismissed on that same day. Ms Jones appealed the dismissal, but Mrs Smith refused the appeal. The tribunal found that while Mrs Smith implemented the decision, she did not exercise any decision-making powers herself.

The tribunal decided on both liability and remedy. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. "The Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent," the tribunal said. It concluded that the disciplinary process and the dismissal were a sham designed to placate the customer.

The judge said that no investigation into the alleged misconduct had actually taken place. The tribunal found that the principal reason for the dismissal was not a reason related to conduct, although it found the reason was capable of amounting to some other substantial reason.

The tribunal heard that the respondent's actions fell well outside the range of responses open to a reasonable employer. The judge also found that if a fair procedure had been followed, there was no chance that Ms Jones would have been dismissed.

The tribunal found that Ms Jones contributed to her dismissal by 10% because of the offensive email. Additionally, the tribunal found that Ms Jones's decision to resign from the Co-op amounted to a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.

• Basic award: £521.54
• Compensatory award: £4,963.20
• Loss of earnings: £5,214.67
• Loss of statutory rights: £300
• Total: £5,484.74

This case shows that employers must follow fair disciplinary procedures when dealing with employee misconduct. Even if an employee makes a mistake, an employer must conduct a proper investigation before making decisions about their employment.

If you have a problem at work or feel you have been treated unfairly, you can get free, impartial advice from Acas. They can help you understand your rights and the next steps you can take.

• Acas: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service: a free, impartial public body that advises on problems at work and helps employers and workers settle disputes.
• Basic award: The part of unfair dismissal compensation worked out from age, length of service and weekly pay, in the same way as statutory redundancy pay.
• Claimant: The person who brings the claim, usually the worker or former worker.
• Compensatory award: The part of unfair dismissal compensation for the money actually lost, such as wages and pension, up to a legal limit.
• Contributed to: When a worker's own actions played a part in their dismissal.
• Contributory fault: A cut in compensation because the employee's own blameworthy conduct helped bring about their dismissal.
• Employment tribunal: An independent judicial body that decides disputes between workers and employers, such as unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
• Liability: Whether the employer is legally responsible: in other words, whether the claim succeeds.
• Misconduct: Behaviour that breaks the rules of the workplace.
• Mitigation: The duty on a dismissed worker to take reasonable steps, such as looking for work, to keep their losses down.
• Remedy: What the tribunal orders when a claim succeeds, usually compensation.
• Respondent: The employer, or other person or organisation, the claim is made against.
• Some other substantial reason: A legal reason for dismissal that is not related to conduct or capability.
• Unfair dismissal: Being dismissed without a fair reason, or in an unfair way. Most employees need to have worked for a minimum period to claim it.

Case number: 3311640/2023
Claimant: Ms M Jones
Respondent: Vale Curtains and Blinds
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Reading (Employment Judge Reindorf KC)
Decision date: 3 September 2024

Read the full decision on GOV.UK

Topics: unfair dismissal, disciplinary procedure, misconduct

This report explains a published tribunal decision in plain English. It is general information, not legal advice.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.