What was it about?
Unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and late provision of employment contract.
What was the outcome?
The Tribunal determined that the Respondent did undertake a reasonable investigation and found the Claimant guilty of misconduct. The Tribunal believed that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to sustain that belief.
In relation to the wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal identified that the employer’s instruction to work at the office was reasonable. The Claimant’s contract contained an express term that they would obey instructions. The Tribunal determined that the Claimant’s failure to follow this instruction, and therefore breach the contractual term, was a serious matter that warranted summary dismissal.
The failure to provide a Statement of Employment Terms in a timely manner was admitted, although it was a delay caused by a third party. As there was no systemic failure or particularly blameworthy conduct that caused the breach, combined with the fact that there was no adverse impact on the Claimant, the Tribunal awarded one week’s pay for the breach.
What were the facts?
The Claimant worked as a Personal Assistant for the Respondent. During the COVID lockdowns in early and late 2020, they worked from home and then returned to the office full-time from 23 June 2021. The Claimant had made a request shortly before returning to the office to work from home during periods of their employment.
Following discussions, the employer refused the Claimant’s request to work from home. After this decision, there were several conversations about the Claimants’s “attitude”. The relationship between the two did not appear to recover with the Claimant applying for a job with another law firm.
During the interview process, the Claimant determined that they would work from home on the day they were due to have an interview with the prospective employer.
The Claimant then sent an email to all staff on the Friday advising that they would be working from home on the Monday. The employer replied that staff cannot make unilateral decisions and in response to this, the Claimant commented to a colleague that it “might be the last thing I do!”.
The Claimant then did work from home on that Monday and was shortly contacted by the employer asking for their whereabouts. Ultimately, a disciplinary hearing was convened for the following day with a warning that the hearing could result in their summary dismissal from employment.
The disciplinary hearing lasted no more than 30 minutes and included discussion in relation to both the ‘attitude’ issues and the failure to follow instruction to work from home. Following the hearing, the decision was taken to summarily dismiss the Claimant.
The Claimant chose not to appeal the decision and started employment with another business shortly thereafter.
The Tribunal determined that the process, whilst quick, was procedurally fair and that there was no evidence the employer prejudged the outcome. This, combined with the fact that the sanction was not unreasonable, meant that the Tribunal rejected the claim for unfair dismissal.
