Tribunal rules drainage manager who swore at boss was unfairly dismissed

Jet Maintenance employment tribunal

According to the London South Employment Tribunal, there was a verbal altercation between Mr D Martin and Duncan King, the director of Jet Maintenance. The altercation involved the use of swear words.

The employment judge found that Duncan King’s brother and managing director, Wesley King, depended on an external HR consultant’s report when investigating the case.

The judge said that the decision to dismiss Martin was “deliberately moulded to fit a predetermined outcome”.

The background to the drainage manager’s unfair dismissal

Martin was employed as a drainage surveying manager by Jet Maintenance from 19 March 2018 until 8 March 2021, when he was dismissed.

The drainage manager had to isolate because of Covid in January 2021. During this time, he gave his computer password to a co-worker, Ben Buttrick, to add an out-of-office message to his account and suspend any client meetings.

The co-worker passed on Martin’s computer details to another colleague. They then used Martin’s computer to complete work and emailed reports to their own account. Duncan King requested all of this.

When Martin returned to work he discovered that emails had been sent from his account and confronted Duncan. The tribunal learned there was a “verbal altercation” and the two swore at each other.

Duncan dismissed Martin on the spot, but this was later withdrawn by Wesley King and changed to a suspension pending investigation.

The investigation started that very same day and Wesley decided a disciplinary hearing should be conducted for gross insubordination and threatening behaviour. Before the hearing, Martin submitted a grievance stating the confrontation between him and Duncan.

Later the drainage business decided to hire an HR consultant, Stuart Farrar. Who produced a professional case report.

What did the tribunal decide?

The tribunal found that Jet Maintenance unfairly dismissed Martin for gross misconduct. They stated that the decision relied merely on Farrar’s report, “which did not recommend or even refer to that course of action”.

Further inconsistent evidence was given stating that Martin might behave, as he did to Duncan, to clients. The tribunal was not persuaded by this.

The judge reduced Martin’s award by 40 per cent for contributing fault, which reflected the “significance” of his behaviour without “penalising him unduly”. Martin was awarded £2,376.72.

What can employers learn from this unfair dismissal?

Employers need to be cautious when there is any element of prejudice or intention in a disciplinary process. It could lead to a successful claim for unfair dismissal.

It is really essential that small businesses put effective policies and processes into place to deter unfair dismissals from happening. It can be hard when family members work in senior roles as prejudice can happen accidentally.

HR employer advice and support with Employer’s Direct

Small businesses are at risk of unfair dismissals when they don’t have an HR department or the proper training and knowledge to deal with complex HR and employment law issues.

Just like the Jet Maintenance case, it can be easy to act in the heat of the moment and not fully know how to conduct a proper investigation. It’s always best to ask for support when cases like this arise.

We provide free support if you’re an employer and need advice on unfair dismissals.

You can speak to one of our HR and employment law advisors free at 0800 144 4050 or fill in the form here to request a callback.