Meliesha Jones was dismissed by Vale Curtains and Blinds in 2023 when she replied to a complaint email from a customer rather than forwarding it to her colleague.
Thereafter the customer’s wife threatened to go to the press and share the incident on social media. This led to a disciplinary hearing and Jones was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Employment judge Reindorf KC ruled she was unfairly dismissed and “the disciplinary process and the dismissal were a sham designed to placate the customer”. Jones was awarded £5,000.
“In this case, the tribunal found that the process was a “sham” as the employer had pre-determined the outcome, after having first appearing to have determined that it was a relatively trivial matter for which no disciplinary action was necessary,” Stephen Ratcliffe, employment partner at firm Baker McKenzie, told HR magazine.
“Seeking to placate the customer by taking disciplinary action for something initially regarded as relatively trivial was the employer’s undoing, in this case.
“This decision does not mean that an employer cannot discipline for incidents that cause reputational damage. However, reputational damage should not be considered in isolation but be weighed up with other relevant matters, including any mitigating factors.”
Read more: Apple employee unfairly dismissed for photos of “teenage-style crush”
In June 2023 Jones received an email from a customer who had made numerous complaints about his order and wanted a full refund for his curtains.
Jones intended to forward the email to her colleague with a request to change his appointment, in which she said “he’s a twat so it doesn’t matter if you can’t”. Instead, she accidentally replied to the email from the customer.
Shortly after, the customer’s wife rang her and said “Is there any reason why you called my husband a twat?”.
The tribunal report noted Jones was “shocked and upset to realise her mistake” and she apologised “profusely” to the customer’s wife.
Jacqueline Smith, Jones’ supervisor and the person responsible for HR, apologised to the wife for what had happened. Smith said Jones would be reprimanded, and the wife asked how she would be compensated for the mistake.
Smith said: “Oh so now we’re back on to you getting your curtains for free? I’m sorry I can’t do that”, but the wife threatened to go to the press and share the incident on social media. Smith told her she would investigate the matter further.
The tribunal noted that Smith “investigated” the matter on an unspecified date by looking at the email and “deciding that based on the seriousness of the behaviour and the risk of a serious detriment to the company a disciplinary hearing had to take place”.
Reindorf noted, however, that Smith did not speak to either Jones or her colleague, who overheard the phone call with the customer’s wife. Smith also did not take any notes of the investigation.
Reindorf added that what she thought had instead happened was when Smith told Johnson what had happened and the wife’s threat to go to the press, he told her to “get rid of” Jones.
Smith also emailed the customer’s wife to inform her Jones was dismissed, which Reindorf said was to “persuade the customer not to publicise the incident further”.
Therefore Jones’ dismissal was unfair, Reindorf ruled, and she was awarded £5,214.67 for loss of earnings and for loss of statutory rights. The reward was reduced by 10% due to Jones’ fault for being “careless” and “improper” by sending the email.
Read more: Murder suspect unfairly dismissed over reputation risk, tribunal rules
Employers should be realistic about the risk of reputational damage when considering dismissing an employee for mistakes such as these, explained Hannah Copeland, HR business partner at employment law and HR consultancy WorkNest.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “It is always worth considering what the actual impact of a mistake might be to reputation.
“Ultimately, it will come down to what can be evidenced and what information is collected in the investigatory stage. No two situations are the same and one case might differ in severity from another.”
Ensuring a fair disciplinary process is followed could help employers prevent unfair dismissal cases, Naeema Choudry, partner at firm Eversheds Sutherland, told HR magazine.
"While a complaint from a customer may be a legitimate ground for starting the disciplinary process, this still requires an employer to have an open mind and to follow a fair process," she noted.
“The starting point for this involves undertaking a thorough investigation into the facts and circumstances, ensuring that all relevant witnesses are interviewed, and any evidence preserved.
"The disciplinary hearing should be conducted by someone who has not been involved in the investigation and preferably someone who is more senior to ensure that they can be truly independent.
"The employee should be given the opportunity to provide their side of the story. In misconduct cases the employer must show that it had a reasonable belief, based on a reasonable investigation that the employee was guilty of the misconduct they are accused of."
