3 ms·

> 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 sections you quoted d

> 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 sections you quoted don't support this statement. The quoted statements highlight contractual clauses which include "excessive" foul language which one instance of calling someone a dickhead does not approach. The only point a single instance of swearing could be grounds for dismissal were against a customer, which is specifically highlighted in the contract. Were the contract to include a clause of "you will not swear at other employees," then that would have been sufficient. Now, whether that falls foul of the Equality Act (due to discriminatory treatment) is a different question. You can't extrapolate any result of that from this case, however.

gowld 1y ago
> Further, whilst not determinative in itself of whether or not the dismissal was unfair, this one off comment did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct so serious to justify summary dismissal for reasons that I have provided above. That part of the ruling is independent of the company policies.
- IshKebab 1y ago
  Right but isn't the point that you can be fairly dismissed for things other than gross misconduct?
  - scott_w 1y ago
    Yes, poor performance could be one. Breach of contract is another, for example, doing something counter to your job. This is different from gross misconduct, as gross misconduct doesn't have to be enumerated in your contract. For example, punching your colleague is both illegal and will likely get you fired for gross misconduct. My contract doesn't have a clause that says "don't assault your colleagues."
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    Yep. But generally not instant dismissal. Although apparently they did actually try to pay her for her notice period and she sent it back? This case is a whole load of fun to read through.
d1sxeyes 1y ago
128 covers whether it was in line with the company’s processes or not. It’s actually not against the Equality Act to treat employees differently, as long as you don’t do it because of a protected characteristic.

gowld 1y ago

> Further, whilst not determinative in itself of whether or not the dismissal was unfair, this one off comment did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct so serious to justify summary dismissal for reasons that I have provided above. That part of the ruling is independent of the company policies.

IshKebab 1y ago
Right but isn't the point that you can be fairly dismissed for things other than gross misconduct?
- scott_w 1y ago
  Yes, poor performance could be one. Breach of contract is another, for example, doing something counter to your job. This is different from gross misconduct, as gross misconduct doesn't have to be enumerated in your contract. For example, punching your colleague is both illegal and will likely get you fired for gross misconduct. My contract doesn't have a clause that says "don't assault your colleagues."
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  Yep. But generally not instant dismissal. Although apparently they did actually try to pay her for her notice period and she sent it back? This case is a whole load of fun to read through.

d1sxeyes 1y ago

128 covers whether it was in line with the company’s processes or not. It’s actually not against the Equality Act to treat employees differently, as long as you don’t do it because of a protected characteristic.