7 ms·

A better summary of the ruling is that "Companies must follow their own procedures". You can't fire someone without process. The ruling is that this wasn't "gr

A better summary of the ruling is that "Companies must follow their own procedures". You can't fire someone without process. The ruling is that this wasn't "gross misconduct", and proper procedure for dealing with the behaviour should have been followed. So before someone comes in claiming the UK to be an unruly anarchy, if you go around dissing the boss or your company then you'll still find yourself facing disciplinary action and could be eventually sacked, just not on the spot!

bombcar 1y ago
A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed. You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse" but then you have to be careful that it might be turned on the bosses and cause another type of lawsuit.
- WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
  “So, my corpus-cavernosum-for-brain boss…”
- jrockway 1y ago
  From the article: > However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal. It seems like the prior warning is the necessary part. The company obviously wants to write the rules such that the upper management team can make a one-off stupid comment to an employee without the employee suing to get them fired. Unfortunately, this means the upper management team can't rage-fire someone with no thought. (No doubt to show how in charge and powerful they are, which kind of proves the person using the term "dickhead" right.)
- Aurornis 1y ago
  HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone. That’s why I don’t see these rulings as a win for the common employee. The situation now encourages companies to be as broad as possible with their contracts and policies and include so many just-in-case provisions that it starts to get hard for anyone to know and follow all of them.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    They'd best be prepared to enforce it evenly, then, or the next suit is "my boss called me a dickhead 43 times without any consequences, and that's discriminatory".
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      Which is another loss for the common employee, because now if you mistakenly violate one of those voluminous company policies or you're having a bad day and make a small lapse of judgment, they're going to feel obligated to punish you for it to avoid more legal infractions.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Or, as said rules also apply to the boss, they might feel obligated to be a bit more reasonable. In this case, all they had to do was issue a warning - as they promosed to do in the contract - instead of a summary firing for the first offense. If the behavior reoccurred they'd have been clear.
      - wredcoll 1y ago
        This is a terribly bad faith argument. We're literally reading an example of someone being protected by laws and your response is "well this is actually bad for them"?
  - Twirrim 1y ago
    Based on conversations with a relative in HR in the UK, usually the company procedures are detailed and cover everything. You just have to follow the procedure. Most of the pain they ever had to deal with has come down to managers etc. acting off the cuff, not following the documented process.
  - scott_w 1y ago
    > HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone. No, they aren't because that's not how contracts or the law work in the UK. The court found that the contract enumerated a long list of breaches of contract, of which "swearing at colleagues" was not in that list. This means the court read the list as exhaustive, because it appeared to be exhaustive. If the contract was worded differently, the court may not have used this interpretive rule. If the wording was a little more broad, the court may have worked to determine whether "swearing at your boss" could reasonably fit into the terms.
- isodev 1y ago
  Is calling a colleague dickhead really “verbal abuse”, though? I think trying to fire someone based on that rather than addressing whatever conflict or friction lead to the “name calling” is an example of bad management.
  - toast0 1y ago
    No, dickhead is a noun; nounal abuse is tolerated. Telling someone to fuck off could be verbal abuse, as fuck is a verb. But in this case it was not the purely figurative suggestion to fuck off was the britishism meaning to please leave with haste.
    - gowld 1y ago
      "is" is an intransitive linking verb. Saying "You're a dickhead" is verbal abuse. Saying "Dickhead" alone is nounal abuse.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- crote 1y ago
  > You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse" That's just going to lead to a lawsuit on the definition of "verbal abuse". > A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed. Even specifically stating that might not work. It is not uncommon for such clauses to be struck through in court if they are deemed unfair and disproportionally punitive to the employee. For a regular office drone otherwise in good standing, given the UK's cultural context, getting fired for calling your boss a "dickhead" is an extremely harsh punishment. An official warning, improvement plan, or some kind of training would be more appropriate.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed. Nope, needs to be reasonable. If you're doing something unusual, then it needs to be telegraphed and backed up so that if you are taken to court you can give evidence as to why that clause was needed. > have something generic like "verbal abuse" you would need to have a policy that defines what verbal abuse is, and a way to record and catagorise it. its also a hard task to prove that one instance of verbal abuse where using "dickhead" as a term of endearment without any other connotations (sexual or otherwise) is gross misconduct, especially as the reply was "you can fuck off"
s1artibartfast 1y ago
And why do companies have to follow their process without deviation? The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract.
- arethuza 1y ago
  Because employees in the UK generally have contracts of employment that both parties have to follow?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jameshart 1y ago
  Because process is what ensures that people subject to the same contract terms all receive equal and fair treatment. You fire one person for calling their boss a dickhead, you’d better be sure you never allowed someone on the same contract to call their boss a dickhead without being fired.
  - gowld 1y ago
    That's not true. Firing is an option, not an obligation. Forgiving a fireable offense in one case doesn't mean every case must be forgiven.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract. No, it doesn't. The business process was part of the legally binding contract. > The hearing was told that under the terms of her contract, she could be fired for “the provocative use of insulting or abusive language”. However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
throw849rjrjri 1y ago
[flagged]
- nness 1y ago
  What are you on about?
- jonplackett 1y ago
  Is English your second language? Dickhead is really quite a mild insult.
  - throw849rjrjri 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jonplackett 1y ago
      No, both of she would be considered a lot ruder. Also even just calling someone a dick is much ruder than a dickhead. In my mind at least. Dickhead is quite throwaway.
nness 1y ago
What is of note is that you cannot typically claim unfair dismissal if you've been employed for less than 2-years in the UK. Seems she was employed more than 2-years and passed the qualifying period. Proves if you plan to run a business and hire employees, you got to understand the protections in place.
- fmbb 1y ago
  If you plan to run a business I hope you take it seriously enough to not fire anyone that hurts your feelings.
  - bgirard 1y ago
    > hurts your feelings Let's not trivialize verbal abuse by calling it hurt feelings.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      Let's not trivialize upending someone's entire life because they hurt your feelings.
      - integralid 1y ago
        "Let's not trivialize firing someone because they (verbally) abused someone"? Are you OK with mobbing in the workplace? They may be "just words" but the can actually have a huge mental negative effect on someone, especially if sustained. I'm not saying this level of seriousness is what happened here, but you exaggerate in the other direction.
        latchup 1y ago
        As with all forms of verbal abuse, the presence of a power imbalance is paramount. And since we abolished slavery, it is about as high as it gets here. What an employee says about their boss generally has zero implications on their career and lives, so long as it does not outright accuse them of a crime. When's the last time someone called you to provide a reference on your boss? I thought so. In turn, what a boss says about their employees can be entirely career-ending and therefore life-altering, even if said in jest or later retracted. A higher standard exists precisely because the stakes are so much higher.
d1sxeyes 1y ago
No, it's not just that—even if the company's policies said so, they still might have been found to have unlawfully dismissed her... The actual judgement is a trip: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ae81ed8bc29f00132ccb82/Ms_K_Herbert_v_Main_Group_Services_Ltd_3310773.2022_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ae81ed8bc29... (these are her in-laws!!!) Anyway, main point is that points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead', and then 134-136 say 'and even your own guidelines say so'.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead ONCE'. Which seems fairly reasonable.
  - acoard 1y ago
    It's completely unreasonable. Calling someone a dickhead in any professional environment is unprofessional and should be grounds for dismissal. Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not. If their employment contract requires it, sure. This worker's contract guaranteed them a warning in this scenario. They are protected by that legally binding contract. That's the entire point of it. Even outside a contract, consequences for actions should be proportional to the harm of those actions. "You called me a mild insult in the heat of the moment after years of productive employment, so I'm removing your livelihood" is not.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - huimang 1y ago
      Of course it depends on the context, but firing someone over one offense of calling someone a dickhead is quite reactionary and punitive. Grow up. Sometimes people say things they regret in the moment, it doesn't mean someone and potentially their family should be affected. This is why you have policies, writeups and whatnot. Not jumping at the chance to fire someone.
BenFranklin100 1y ago
While that may be true in the UK, most US states are employee-at-will states. There doesn’t need to be a reason.
- moomin 1y ago
  Ok, but that’s more of an argument that the US is an unruly anarchy.
  - BenFranklin100 1y ago
    The United States is far from an anarchy. There are a huge number of regulations governing employer-employee relationships. The topic is flexibility in hiring/ firing decisions and whether this flexibility is a good or bad thing overall. The empirical data between US and Europe - where the US has much higher wages and generally lower unemployment - suggests but does not prove this flexibility contributes to a better overall job market. In the US employers may be quicker to fire you, but they are also quicker to hire you. Personally, as an employee I like the flexibility. If I do a good job, it’s rare to get fired, and I have more ability to jump ship if don’t like my current job.
    - dzhiurgis 1y ago
      Yep, this is business 101. IMO all employees should default to contractors and then at very specific conditions become permanent.
      - slater 1y ago
        Who needs any discernible form of stability? CEOs exempted, of course!
        dzhiurgis 1y ago
        Unemployment is also stability. With enough regulation that is certainty!
        1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
so if the company had a rule you are not allowed to swear at anyone and may be summarily fired it would be ok? What are the requirements of process?
- beardyw 1y ago
  It all hangs on "reasonableness" for which there is no legal definition. Generally if there is no lasting harm (like setting fire to the office) then there is a process like a three strikes rule in which the employee is given a chance to mend their ways (like not swearing).

bombcar 1y ago

A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed. You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse" but then you have to be careful that it might be turned on the bosses and cause another type of lawsuit.

WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
“So, my corpus-cavernosum-for-brain boss…”
jrockway 1y ago
From the article: > However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal. It seems like the prior warning is the necessary part. The company obviously wants to write the rules such that the upper management team can make a one-off stupid comment to an employee without the employee suing to get them fired. Unfortunately, this means the upper management team can't rage-fire someone with no thought. (No doubt to show how in charge and powerful they are, which kind of proves the person using the term "dickhead" right.)
Aurornis 1y ago
HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone. That’s why I don’t see these rulings as a win for the common employee. The situation now encourages companies to be as broad as possible with their contracts and policies and include so many just-in-case provisions that it starts to get hard for anyone to know and follow all of them.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  They'd best be prepared to enforce it evenly, then, or the next suit is "my boss called me a dickhead 43 times without any consequences, and that's discriminatory".
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    Which is another loss for the common employee, because now if you mistakenly violate one of those voluminous company policies or you're having a bad day and make a small lapse of judgment, they're going to feel obligated to punish you for it to avoid more legal infractions.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Or, as said rules also apply to the boss, they might feel obligated to be a bit more reasonable. In this case, all they had to do was issue a warning - as they promosed to do in the contract - instead of a summary firing for the first offense. If the behavior reoccurred they'd have been clear.
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      This is a terribly bad faith argument. We're literally reading an example of someone being protected by laws and your response is "well this is actually bad for them"?
- Twirrim 1y ago
  Based on conversations with a relative in HR in the UK, usually the company procedures are detailed and cover everything. You just have to follow the procedure. Most of the pain they ever had to deal with has come down to managers etc. acting off the cuff, not following the documented process.
- scott_w 1y ago
  > HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone. No, they aren't because that's not how contracts or the law work in the UK. The court found that the contract enumerated a long list of breaches of contract, of which "swearing at colleagues" was not in that list. This means the court read the list as exhaustive, because it appeared to be exhaustive. If the contract was worded differently, the court may not have used this interpretive rule. If the wording was a little more broad, the court may have worked to determine whether "swearing at your boss" could reasonably fit into the terms.
isodev 1y ago
Is calling a colleague dickhead really “verbal abuse”, though? I think trying to fire someone based on that rather than addressing whatever conflict or friction lead to the “name calling” is an example of bad management.
- toast0 1y ago
  No, dickhead is a noun; nounal abuse is tolerated. Telling someone to fuck off could be verbal abuse, as fuck is a verb. But in this case it was not the purely figurative suggestion to fuck off was the britishism meaning to please leave with haste.
  - gowld 1y ago
    "is" is an intransitive linking verb. Saying "You're a dickhead" is verbal abuse. Saying "Dickhead" alone is nounal abuse.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
crote 1y ago
> You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse" That's just going to lead to a lawsuit on the definition of "verbal abuse". > A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed. Even specifically stating that might not work. It is not uncommon for such clauses to be struck through in court if they are deemed unfair and disproportionally punitive to the employee. For a regular office drone otherwise in good standing, given the UK's cultural context, getting fired for calling your boss a "dickhead" is an extremely harsh punishment. An official warning, improvement plan, or some kind of training would be more appropriate.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed. Nope, needs to be reasonable. If you're doing something unusual, then it needs to be telegraphed and backed up so that if you are taken to court you can give evidence as to why that clause was needed. > have something generic like "verbal abuse" you would need to have a policy that defines what verbal abuse is, and a way to record and catagorise it. its also a hard task to prove that one instance of verbal abuse where using "dickhead" as a term of endearment without any other connotations (sexual or otherwise) is gross misconduct, especially as the reply was "you can fuck off"

s1artibartfast 1y ago

And why do companies have to follow their process without deviation? The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract.

arethuza 1y ago
Because employees in the UK generally have contracts of employment that both parties have to follow?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jameshart 1y ago
Because process is what ensures that people subject to the same contract terms all receive equal and fair treatment. You fire one person for calling their boss a dickhead, you’d better be sure you never allowed someone on the same contract to call their boss a dickhead without being fired.
- gowld 1y ago
  That's not true. Firing is an option, not an obligation. Forgiving a fireable offense in one case doesn't mean every case must be forgiven.
ceejayoz 1y ago
> The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract. No, it doesn't. The business process was part of the legally binding contract. > The hearing was told that under the terms of her contract, she could be fired for “the provocative use of insulting or abusive language”. However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago

throw849rjrjri 1y ago

[flagged]

nness 1y ago
What are you on about?
jonplackett 1y ago
Is English your second language? Dickhead is really quite a mild insult.
- throw849rjrjri 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jonplackett 1y ago
    No, both of she would be considered a lot ruder. Also even just calling someone a dick is much ruder than a dickhead. In my mind at least. Dickhead is quite throwaway.

nness 1y ago

What is of note is that you cannot typically claim unfair dismissal if you've been employed for less than 2-years in the UK. Seems she was employed more than 2-years and passed the qualifying period. Proves if you plan to run a business and hire employees, you got to understand the protections in place.

fmbb 1y ago
If you plan to run a business I hope you take it seriously enough to not fire anyone that hurts your feelings.
- bgirard 1y ago
  > hurts your feelings Let's not trivialize verbal abuse by calling it hurt feelings.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    Let's not trivialize upending someone's entire life because they hurt your feelings.
    - integralid 1y ago
      "Let's not trivialize firing someone because they (verbally) abused someone"? Are you OK with mobbing in the workplace? They may be "just words" but the can actually have a huge mental negative effect on someone, especially if sustained. I'm not saying this level of seriousness is what happened here, but you exaggerate in the other direction.
      - latchup 1y ago
        As with all forms of verbal abuse, the presence of a power imbalance is paramount. And since we abolished slavery, it is about as high as it gets here. What an employee says about their boss generally has zero implications on their career and lives, so long as it does not outright accuse them of a crime. When's the last time someone called you to provide a reference on your boss? I thought so. In turn, what a boss says about their employees can be entirely career-ending and therefore life-altering, even if said in jest or later retracted. A higher standard exists precisely because the stakes are so much higher.

d1sxeyes 1y ago

No, it's not just that—even if the company's policies said so, they still might have been found to have unlawfully dismissed her... The actual judgement is a trip: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ae81ed8bc29f00132ccb82/Ms_K_Herbert_v_Main_Group_Services_Ltd_3310773.2022_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ae81ed8bc29... (these are her in-laws!!!) Anyway, main point is that points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead', and then 134-136 say 'and even your own guidelines say so'.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead ONCE'. Which seems fairly reasonable.
- acoard 1y ago
  It's completely unreasonable. Calling someone a dickhead in any professional environment is unprofessional and should be grounds for dismissal. Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not. If their employment contract requires it, sure. This worker's contract guaranteed them a warning in this scenario. They are protected by that legally binding contract. That's the entire point of it. Even outside a contract, consequences for actions should be proportional to the harm of those actions. "You called me a mild insult in the heat of the moment after years of productive employment, so I'm removing your livelihood" is not.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - huimang 1y ago
    Of course it depends on the context, but firing someone over one offense of calling someone a dickhead is quite reactionary and punitive. Grow up. Sometimes people say things they regret in the moment, it doesn't mean someone and potentially their family should be affected. This is why you have policies, writeups and whatnot. Not jumping at the chance to fire someone.

BenFranklin100 1y ago

While that may be true in the UK, most US states are employee-at-will states. There doesn’t need to be a reason.

moomin 1y ago
Ok, but that’s more of an argument that the US is an unruly anarchy.
- BenFranklin100 1y ago
  The United States is far from an anarchy. There are a huge number of regulations governing employer-employee relationships. The topic is flexibility in hiring/ firing decisions and whether this flexibility is a good or bad thing overall. The empirical data between US and Europe - where the US has much higher wages and generally lower unemployment - suggests but does not prove this flexibility contributes to a better overall job market. In the US employers may be quicker to fire you, but they are also quicker to hire you. Personally, as an employee I like the flexibility. If I do a good job, it’s rare to get fired, and I have more ability to jump ship if don’t like my current job.
  - dzhiurgis 1y ago
    Yep, this is business 101. IMO all employees should default to contractors and then at very specific conditions become permanent.
    - slater 1y ago
      Who needs any discernible form of stability? CEOs exempted, of course!
      - dzhiurgis 1y ago
        Unemployment is also stability. With enough regulation that is certainty!
      - 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

so if the company had a rule you are not allowed to swear at anyone and may be summarily fired it would be ok? What are the requirements of process?

beardyw 1y ago
It all hangs on "reasonableness" for which there is no legal definition. Generally if there is no lasting harm (like setting fire to the office) then there is a process like a three strikes rule in which the employee is given a chance to mend their ways (like not swearing).