"RECALL, RECALL, RECALL!!"

‘Recall, recall, recall!’ Administrative worker unfairly dismissed after accidentally sending client abusive email
 
There has been a lot of coverage recently of the administrative worker who was dismissed when she accidentally emailed a customer calling them a ‘twa*’. The headlines were attention grabbing because, despite this conduct, a tribunal found that her employer’s subsequent decision to dismiss her was unfair, and awarded her £5484.74. Microsoft Word - Jones v Vale Curtains and Blinds 3311640_23 JUDGMENT FINAL.docx (publishing.service.gov.uk)
 
What were the fact of the case? 
In May 2021, Ms Jones joined Vale Curtains and Blinds in Oxford as a part-time administrator. She liaised with customers on the phone and over email.
 
In June 2023, she was sacked for gross misconduct after she accidentally sent a customer an email which had been intended for her manager, Mr Karl Gibbons.
 
Prior to this, the customer had complained repeatedly about his curtains order and was trying to get a refund. He had emailed Ms Jones who had then intended to forward the email to her boss, along with a covering message. The email to her manager said:
 
“Hi Karl – Can you change this… he’s a twa* so it doesn’t matter if you can’t”
 
However instead of clicking forward and sending the matter to her boss, she clicked ‘’reply’’, no doubt giving the client a nasty surprise! 
 
Later that day, the customer’s wife called the business to ask “Is there any reason why you called my husband a twa*?”
 
On realising what she had done, the Tribunal heard that Ms Jones was mortified and profusely apologised to the customer’s wife. She also put the call on loudspeaker so that her colleague could hear her apologies. The customer however asked to speak to the manager, Mrs Jacqueline Smith, and demanded to know how they would be compensated.  Mrs Smith advised the customer that they could not have the curtains for free and that Ms Jones would be spoken to.
 
In response, the customer’s wife said that they were prepared to talk about their experience on social media and to the press, to which Mrs Smith said she would investigate the matter and come back to her.
 
The tribunal heard that the customer and his wife continued to threaten to publicise the incident, saying they would leave a negative review on Trustpilot.
 
The tribunal went on to find that because of these threats, the business decided that it needed to dismiss Ms Jones.
 
Disciplinary process
Ms Jones was invited to a disciplinary hearing, however prior to the hearing, the business failed to conduct any investigatory interview with her to understand her version of events. They also failed to interview the customer. The company then dismissed Ms Jones, but failed to document why they believed it was necessary to dismiss.
 
A letter detailing the decision was later sent to the customer’s wife – which the tribunal was satisfied was an attempt to persuade the customer not to go to the press, and Ms Jones’ appeal against her dismissal was denied.
 
Tribunal decision
Finding the dismissal unfair, Employment Judge Akua Reindorf KC found: “The reason for the decision was that the customer had threatened to publicise the incident and to leave a poor review on Trustpilot.
“I am satisfied that if a fair procedure had been followed, there is no chance that the claimant would have been dismissed.”
 
She added: “The disciplinary process and the dismissal were a sham designed to placate the customer.”
 
Comment
Customers complaints should of course be taken seriously and may legitimately and fairly give rise to disciplinary proceedings and in some cases, the dismissal of an employee or employees. Employers should however keep an open mind and carry out a full investigation into the alleged conduct, which in most cases will involve interviewing the individual concerned and getting their response to the allegations. A fair and balanced investigator should also consider any mitigation put forward by the employee.
 
Ultimately, for an employer to establish a fair dismissal on misconduct grounds, they must be able to show they had a reasonable belief, based on a reasonable investigation that the employee was guilty of the misconduct alleged. It appears that the company’s downfall in this case was that their initial reaction to the email was that it was something for Ms Jones would be reprimanded, but not dismissed. It was only on receipt of further threats from the customer that they moved to dismiss. The tribunal effectively found that dismissal was outside the range or reasonable responses open to the business, and that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.