In Meliesha Jones v Vale Curtains and Blinds, an Oxford admin worker was dismissed after calling a customer “a tw*t” in an email. Unfortunately, this email was then accidentally sent to the customer costing the worker her job.
The Employment Tribunal found that no fair process for dismissal had been followed and that this therefore constituted unfair dismissal. Read on to learn more about the facts and judgment in this case.
What Happened with the Oxford Admin Worker?
Oxford Admin Worker Accidentally Replies to an Email
Meliesha Jones (the claimant) was employed by Vale Curtains and Blinds (the respondent) from May 2021 as an Oxford admin worker. She was on friendly terms with her manager, Mrs Smith, and a colleague, Mr Gibbons. Before the incident in question, the claimant had a clean disciplinary record.
On 14 June 2023, the admin worker received an email from a customer requesting to change the time of an appointment. She had faced issues with this customer previously, as she felt he had been rude to her on the telephone. She then intended to forward the email to Mr Gibbons but clicked on “reply” by mistake. And so, her email was sent to the customer.
Read: Great-Grandmother Wins £24K in Unfair Dismissal Case
After Boss Tells Her to Slap Her Great-Grandson
The accidental reply asked Mr Gibbons to rearrange the appointment but ended with “he’s a tw*t so it doesn’t matter if you can’t.” Shortly afterwards, the customer’s wife called the claimant to complain about the email she had sent. The claimant apologised repeatedly to the lady, after which she called Mrs Smith to let her know what had happened.
Mrs Smith told the claimant that she would deal with the situation when she arrived in the office. Mrs Smith also called the customer’s wife and apologised for the claimant’s error. The lady asked how she would be compensated, and Mrs Smith promised to look into this. After the call, the claimant offered to pay the customer £500 as a goodwill gesture.
Like what you're reading? Don't forget to subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter!
Accidental Email Leads to a Disciplinary Procedure
On 16 June, the claimant arrived at work to find Mrs Smith in tears. She asked what was wrong and gave Mrs Smith a hug. Mrs Smith gave the claimant a letter inviting her to a disciplinary hearing on 19 June. The claimant was not provided with a copy of the respondent’s disciplinary procedure at that time.
During the tribunal case, it transpired that the customer in question had contacted the company owner directly regarding the claimant’s email. The customer had threatened to publicise the incident and put negative reviews on Trustpilot. As a result of this, the owner contacted Mrs Smith and told her to “get rid” of the claimant.
No investigation into the incident was carried out before the disciplinary hearing took place. Moreover, neither the claimant nor the customer was interviewed. The claimant asked Mr Gibbons to accompany her to the disciplinary hearing, but he was unavailable on the date in question. The claimant then informed Mrs Smith about this, but the disciplinary hearing proceeded regardless.
During the disciplinary hearing, the claimant explained that the incident had taken place on the birthday of her daughter who had died several years before. As such, her mind was not on the job. The claimant accepted that her conduct was wrong and the negative impact it could have on the business. However, she said her mental health should be considered.
Oxford Admin Worker Dismissed for Gross Misconduct
After a seven-minute interval, the claimant was called back into the disciplinary hearing. She was dismissed with immediate effect. At that time, the claimant was not told the grounds for the termination of employment or anything about her right to appeal the decision. Mrs Smith emailed the customer shortly afterwards to inform them of the dismissal.
Read: YMCA Employee Disciplined Over Printer “Misuse” Awarded 22K
in Constructive Unfair Dismissal Case
Later that day, the claimant emailed Mrs Smith, asking about the appeal process and the grounds for her termination of employment. Mrs Smith replied, stating that the claimant had been dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct. In the staff handbook, one example of gross misconduct was “incompetence or failure to apply sound professional judgement”, which was cited in this case.
The claimant emailed the company owner on 23 June setting out 14 grounds for appeal. The company owner forwarded this email to Mrs Smith. This led to multiple communications between Mrs Smith and the company owner over the following week. However, on 30 June, Mrs Smith emailed the claimant to confirm that her right to appeal had been denied.
The claimant subsequently brought an unfair dismissal claim against the respondent.
Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Admin Worker
The case of the Oxford admin worker was heard at the Reading Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge Reindorf KC. The claimant, Mrs Smith, and Mr Gibbons all gave evidence at the hearing. In the end, the Employment Tribunal’s judgment ultimately upheld the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal found that the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal was not gross misconduct, but the threats made by the customer relating to bad publicity and negative reviews. However, it also stated that there was still a potentially fair reason of “some other substantial reason” under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act.
Furthermore, the tribunal listed reasons for unfair dismissal. It said that the respondent’s decision to dismiss fell “well outside the range of responses open to a reasonable employer”. This was despite the respondent’s small size and limited resources. Other reasons for unfair dismissal included no adequate investigation having been conducted, no alternative options to dismissal having been considered, and no fair process having been followed.
The tribunal added that “the disciplinary process and the dismissal were a sham designed to placate the customer”. This was demonstrated by the company owner’s attitude and the fact that Mrs Smith emailed the customer immediately following the dismissal. As such, the tribunal ruled that this was an unfair dismissal which warranted an unfair dismissal payout.
The claimant was awarded an unfair dismissal payout of £5,484.74.