- Boston
01205 351114 - Bourne
01778 218001 - Grantham
01476 591550 - Horncastle
01507 522456 - Lincoln
01522 541181 - London
02078 715755 - Newark
01636 673731 - Sleaford
01529 411500 - Spalding
01775 725664 - Stamford
01780 764145
Dismissal of employee caught on CCTV placing signs outside third party's site was fair
In the case of Bentinck v Marken Ltd: 3305095/2023 has found that an employee's dismissal was fair.
The employer received a complaint from DHL Global Forwarding [“DHL”]. DHL was a client and competitor of the respondent. DHL identified from CCTV footage one of the employer’s vans at DHL’s site. A person exited the van and placed between 7 and 9 signs to lampposts containing an image of a former employee of the respondent, now working for DHL. The signs alleged that the employer's former employee was untrustworthy.
DHL's complaint to the employer suggested that the signs were defamatory and that it wished to protect it's reputation. The employer was invited to review the CCTV footage.
The employer identified the Claimant from DHL's CCTV footage and undertook a disciplinary investigation, which resulted in the Claimant's dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct.
The Employment Tribunal noted that the reasons given for dismissal, namely “unlawful harassment” and “mismanagement of the company’s assets” were not the most accurate descriptions from the list of examples of gross misconduct in the employer's Employee Handbook. The Employment Tribunal noted that the list in the Employee Handbook included, "conduct on or off duty which we consider prejudicial to our interests and reputation," which it said would be a more accurate description. Nonetheless the Tribunal noted that the list was not intended to be exhaustive and that the employer genuinely viewed the employee's actions as amounting to gross misconduct.
The Tribunal accepted that it was reasonable for the employer to view the employee's actions as gross misconduct because they potentially damaged it’s reputation and relationship with an important business connection. In this regard it's important to note that the Claimant had used the employer's branded vehicle and the person identified on the signs was a former employee of the employer.
This case is a helpful reminder that when the evidence supports an allegation, Tribunals tend to give employers a broad discretion regarding the outcome of a disciplinary case even if it does not fall squarely within examples of gross misconduct included in an Employee Handbook.
Our experienced team of employment lawyers frequently advise on disciplinary matters and help defend Employment Tribunal proceedings.
CONTACT US
Our team of employment lawyers have valuable experience of defending Employment Tribunal claims from the outset of responding to a claim right through to the final hearing and any application for costs.
If you require further advice regarding this, or any other legal issue, please contact Chattertons: