Wheel of Misfortune!

Sponge Bob
Nicknames at work –
Fun bit of office ‘Banter’? >

Muffin Man Is a
muffin a breakfast
item or cake? >

Is £100,000 in
costs a victory? >

Serial
Urinators >

Doped up
Driver >

Sponge Bob
Nicknames at work –
Fun bit of office ‘Banter’? >

Muffin Man Is a
muffin a breakfast
item or cake? >

Is £100,000 in
costs a victory? >

Serial
Urinators >

Doped up
Driver >

Sponge Bob

Are nicknames at work simply fun office ‘banter’ or can
they be a sign of bullying, or even discrimination?

Most people if not all have been given a nickname at some
point in their lives; some good, some not so much.
The Employment Tribunal has heard a great variety about the
latter and the first case that springs to mind is what is often
referred to as the Sponge Bob Case. In the case of
Faithful v AXA PPP Healthcare, the Claimant was nicknamed
Sponge Bob based on her Brazilian accent (this was just one
of [several?] discriminatory acts). The employer was aware
of the nickname and the situation but didn’t think it was serious
and failed to act. The ET found that the treatment the Claimant
received and the lasting effects she suffered were so severe
that it awarded just under £142,000. Ms Faithful’s annual salary
was £17,765.

Top Tip – Don’t bury your head in the sand. If you hear
nicknames around the office, don’t shrug it off as office
‘banter’. It may seem fun or innocent to everyone but it
may not and there could be serious consequences for
your business. An informal conversation to find out
more about the situation will give you a better idea of
what is actually going on and how people feel about it
so you can consider how to approach any next steps.

Sponge Bob
Nicknames at work –
Fun bit of office ‘Banter’? >

Muffin Man Is a
muffin a breakfast
item or cake? >

Is £100,000 in
costs a victory? >

Serial
Urinators >

Doped up
Driver >

Muffin Man

Is a muffin a breakfast item or cake?

In the case of Medhin v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd t/a
Restaurant Associates, the business had recently changed
their policy on staff meal allowances. The old policies on this
had not been enforced and staff took whatever food they
wanted. Under the new policy certain items were excluded.
Both the breakfast and lunch sections excluded cakes,
but there was no express reference to muffins. During the
internal process the Claimant openly admitted eating the
muffin but argued that a muffin was more of a breakfast item
rather than a cake. Due to a combination of valid sickness
and family obligations the claimant was unable to attend four
disciplinary meetings and on the fourth occasion the employer,
with warning, held it in his absence and decided to dismiss
because Mr Medhin had admitted stealing (eating) the muffin.

The ET found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed
because the employer had decided to dismiss him based on
his admission of theft, when he had actually only admitted to
eating the item as he believed that he was entitled to it
under the policy.

Top Tip – this case really highlights the need to have the
proper documents and policies in place to really meet the
needs of your business. Ok, in this case it’s a muffin, but it
highlights how important it is to be clear and precise
in your policies.

Sponge Bob
Nicknames at work –
Fun bit of office ‘Banter’? >

Muffin Man Is a
muffin a breakfast
item or cake? >

Is £100,000 in
costs a victory? >

Serial
Urinators >

Doped up
Driver >

Is £100,000 in costs a victory?

The case of Dare v West London Mental Health NHS Trust
cost the trust close to £100k in costs to defend, which
they won on a technicality. Would you see this as
successful result?

Previously, a fundamental rule of Whistleblowing was that it
needed to be in good faith. The Claimant lost his claim due to
the ET believing that this wasn’t the case. Regardless of
winning, the trust was left with a costs bill of £93,500. The Trust
looked to pursue Ms Dare for these costs but this was seen
as so outrageous that Prime Minister, David Cameron, stepped
in to ask why she was being pursued.

Top Tip – The ‘good faith’ requirement has now been
removed so any disclosures regardless of the motives
qualify for protection. Whatever the reason for a disclosure,
as an employer it is advised that you investigate properly
to ensure that the issue is identified and the correct action
is taken. It is also very important to ensure that the
employee making the disclosure isn’t subjected to any
mistreatment and it is worthwhile taking the time to
check in with them to ensure this is the case. This
approach benefits all parties as the employee is
supported, and if things escalated you can show that
the company acted appropriately.

Sponge Bob
Nicknames at work –
Fun bit of office ‘Banter’? >

Muffin Man Is a
muffin a breakfast
item or cake? >

Is £100,000 in
costs a victory? >

Serial
Urinators >

Doped up
Driver >

Serial Urinators

Would you find it acceptable if your staff chose not
to use the toilet facilities?

An employer had to defend itself against five claims
of unfair dismissal from employees that regularly
urinated outside on company premises.

In the case of Elms and others v Fine Tubes Ltd, five former
employees felt that that they had been unfairly dismissed after
being caught urinating in outside areas on company premises.
The incidents were caught on covert CCTV and each of the
five Claimants were captured on numerous occasions.

The company’s policy stated that disciplinary meetings would
be held by Line Managers, but the Managing Director felt
he should conduct them due to the seriousness of the matter.
Although this case was successfully defended, the ET were
split in their decision (two to one). It was argued that the
company contradicted its own policy by allowing a
Managing Director to hear the disciplinary meetings rather than
a Line Manager. It was also argued that as the practice of
urinating outside had been occurring for some time,
it had become customary.

Top Tip – Ensure that you stick to your policies. You may
sometimes need to divert from standard practice in certain
circumstances but unless your policy allows you to do
so the company may be at risk.

Sponge Bob
Nicknames at work –
Fun bit of office ‘Banter’? >

Muffin Man Is a
muffin a breakfast
item or cake? >

Is £100,000 in
costs a victory? >

Serial
Urinators >

Doped up
Driver >

Doped up Driver

A driver for First bus who tested positive for drugs was
found to have been unfairly dismissed even though
the company believed it followed the due process
throughout.

In Bailes v First West of England, the company had a policy
allowing it to randomly test employees or where there were
grounds for suspicion of misuse of drugs. The Claimant C
was given a saliva swab drug test and tested positive for
class A drug, cocaine. First West decided to take disciplinary
action and subsequently dismissed, Mr Bailes. Throughout
the process Mr Bailes had denied any use of illegal drugs
and insisted that the results were incorrect.

Mr Bailes subsequently took a more accurate hair follicle test
which proved that there had not been any drugs in his system
for 90 days. The initial test was probably incorrect due to him
having handled hundreds of pounds in bank notes which
were contaminated by the drug. Mr Bailes was not given
his job of 22 years back following this new development
and took his claim to the ET.

Although the employer believed that it had acted reasonably
based on the initial test results, its policy and the safety of
others, the ET found that it should have investigated further
into the possibility that Mr Bailes was telling the truth.

Top Tip – Keep an open mind so that you can make a fair
decision based on all the fact and don’t be afraid to
acknowledge mistakes. Your disciplinary/dismissal
process should include the right to appeal and this
is the perfect opportunity to revisit previous, as well new
information to make the right decision. If you identify a
mistake do what you can to rectify it.