Nicholas Kitaruth was dismissed from his job for gross misconduct after working from his parents’ house in Cornwall. His manager requested him to attend an in-person meeting in London, which he was not able to do.
Although Kitaruth claimed he verbally agreed with his manager, Craig Stride, to work from home on the agreed dates, Stride denied this was confirmed.
The amount Kitaruth has won will be decided at a later date. However, the tribunal found that he did not complete any work, and ruled that his total compensation would be deducted by half.
Read more: Nurse who was left out of a tea round wins payout at tribunal
With many employees working from home, the line between workplace and home has become less well defined, and clear policies are needed around expectations of worker performance, stated Gill McAteer, director of employment law at HR and employment law services provider, Citation.
She told HR magazine: “There is no doubt that with so many working from home, rules have become blurred, and situations like this one show the risks of these grey areas.
“Having clear home-working policies and confirming individual arrangements in writing can help avoid confusion and provide employers with clear processes to rely on.”
HR leaders should also work closely with managers in order to address performance issues, according to Tyler Yamnik, HR consultant at Engage PEO.
Speaking to HR magazine, he said: “HR should equip managers with training on effective performance management processes and legal compliance to ensure fair and consistent handling of underperforming employees.
“To ensure correct protocol, HR should regularly partner with management to address employee performance issues systematically through structured performance improvement plans. This not only offers employees a fair chance to improve but also creates a transparent record of the process, safeguarding the organisation against potential disputes.”
Tribunal judge, Tamara Lewis, found that although Kitaruth misled his managers, the company did not investigate the incident fairly and did not interview Stride after his decision to dismiss Kitaruth.
Lewis stated during the tribunal that no reasonable employer would have failed to interview Stride about his decision to dismiss Kitaruth.
Read more: Age discrimination tribunal payouts soar
Employers should ensure they set down expectations in writing, to avoid legal action, said Yamnik.
He said: “Employers should formalise work agreements in writing, ensure that company policies are applied consistently to all employees, and conduct thorough, unbiased investigations before making termination decisions."
Katherine Loranger, chief people officer at payroll solutions provider Safeguard Global, emphasised the importance of fairness when investigating a workplace dispute.
She told HR magazine: “Fairness and transparency should always be at the core of how employment decisions are made. A well-defined disciplinary process, including thorough documentation, proper communication, and an unbiased review, helps mitigate risk.
“Leaders should ensure that decisions are based on facts rather than assumptions and that employees have an opportunity to be heard.”
Employers must also set clear guidelines on what constitutes gross misconduct, McAteer said.
She stated: “While some actions, such as theft or violence, are obvious grounds for dismissal, employers must ensure that employees understand what other types of misconduct could lead to serious consequences.”
In this specific case, there was a lack of clarity over the reason for dismissal and the company failed to interview a key witness, McAteer added.
She said: “Employers must ensure that any allegations made against an employee are clearly defined and properly investigated before taking action. Failure to do so can result in an unfair dismissal, even when the grounds for termination might otherwise be legitimate."
