The headline: “Finance worker wins £8,000 payout after quitting her job when bosses suspended her over ‘dragon porn’ audiobook messages.” The reality: it is not always necessary for an employee to see a disciplinary process all the way through to the end if the outcome is plainly predetermined and the procedure plainly unfair. What led to the finding of unfair dismissal in Coleman v Thermoelectric Conversion Systems?
At TCS, there was a rule requiring staff to download their personal WhatsApp accounts onto their work PCs. They were in turn accessible via TCS equipment. When a manager accessed Ms Coleman’s work PC to obtain a spreadsheet, her WhatsApp account came up, displaying a private out of work hours chat with a colleague that described another TCS manager as “so rude it’s unbelievable”. He then took it upon himself to read 30 pages of personal conversations, including a desire to slam another colleague’s head against his desk (because of an irritating habit), and a mention of an audiobook that had “just got steamy”, generating the response “haha oh ur big dragon porn”. Because employees were allowed to listen to audiobooks while working, the manager jumped to the conclusion that there had been a breach of internet usage policy.
Having suspended Ms Coleman, TCS published a charge sheet with a number of allegations – some particularised, some not – and the closing comment “we consider all these gross misconduct”. TCS went on to tell her, incorrectly, that her intended union rep at the disciplinary hearing could not speak on her behalf. Believing that the writing was on the wall, she took a prepared resignation letter along with her. When TCS then sought to bar the rep, because he was only prepared to show his credentials (ticking the right box) rather than hand them over for “verification” (not a legal requirement), she gave in the letter.
Had TCS destroyed mutual trust, or did Ms Coleman jump the gun?
The tribunal initially struggled with Ms Coleman’s claims that reading her private messages and basing the disciplinary proceedings upon them were unlawful acts, rather than only unreasonable acts. However, they provided context for the crucial factor. TCS’ action in barring the rep, over and above asserting that he would not be allowed to speak on Ms Coleman’s behalf, was the last straw in a sequence that showed a closed mind and the lack of any intention to hold a fair disciplinary hearing. Ms Coleman was entitled to decide that this had gone to the heart of the employment relationship and destroyed it. There was no need for her to see the disciplinary process to a close.
Not for the first time, it may be noted that timely external legal advice may have saved an employer an embarrassing defeat. Don’t risk getting caught out the same way if you have a similar problem. Contact David Cooper on 07450 350715 or via david@wolverhamptonemploymentlaw.co.uk .
Share this post: