in the recent case of Ahmed v Nat West an employee who was sacked after running several business websites, including sex work websites, some of which he registered to the office where he worked for the respondent was found to have been unfairly dismissed.
In a startling example of the importance of following due process even where very serious allegations are involved, the respondent dismissed the claimant after discovering he had set up sex work websites offering sexually explicit content which were linked to his LinkedIn page which clearly identified him as an employee of the respondent.
He had also set up a business development company which boasted an “airy Brighton office with free car parking” – that office was the respondent’s office!
The respondent was found to have unfairly dismissed the claimant as they did not follow a fair procedure – there was no final disciplinary hearing, the claimant did not have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and he was not warned of his possible dismissal in advance.
The tribunal did, however, reduce his compensation by 100% for contributory fault. This will have been some consolation to the respondent but will not have spared them the costly process of defending the claim through to a full hearing in the tribunal.
"this just goes to show how vital it is to follow procedure, even when the outcome appears absolutely certain. It really doesn’t matter how unreasonably the employee has behaved, if the employer cannot show that they themselves are reasonable and respect the procedures necessary to discipline someone.
We provide bespoke training in the area of disciplinaries and the right to manage, which sometimes an employer can think is obvious. It is easy to be caught out by the basics, and it may be a good idea to refresh your knowledge." - Sarah Walker - Vista's Training team
This case is cautionary tale that employers faced with what is on the face of it blatant and obvious gross misconduct, still need to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures or else risk a finding of unfair dismissal (even if as in this case any award was reduced by 100% for contributory fault).
In a startling example of the importance of following due process even where very serious allegations are involved, the respondent dismissed the claimant after discovering he had set up sex work websites offering sexually explicit content which were linked to his LinkedIn page which clearly identified him as an employee of the respondent.
He had also set up a business development company which boasted an “airy Brighton office with free car parking” – that office was the respondent’s office!
The respondent was found to have unfairly dismissed the claimant as they did not follow a fair procedure – there was no final disciplinary hearing, the claimant did not have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and he was not warned of his possible dismissal in advance.
The tribunal did, however, reduce his compensation by 100% for contributory fault. This will have been some consolation to the respondent but will not have spared them the costly process of defending the claim through to a full hearing in the tribunal.
"this just goes to show how vital it is to follow procedure, even when the outcome appears absolutely certain. It really doesn’t matter how unreasonably the employee has behaved, if the employer cannot show that they themselves are reasonable and respect the procedures necessary to discipline someone.
We provide bespoke training in the area of disciplinaries and the right to manage, which sometimes an employer can think is obvious. It is easy to be caught out by the basics, and it may be a good idea to refresh your knowledge." - Sarah Walker - Vista's Training team
This case is cautionary tale that employers faced with what is on the face of it blatant and obvious gross misconduct, still need to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures or else risk a finding of unfair dismissal (even if as in this case any award was reduced by 100% for contributory fault).
