British Gas Trading Ltd v Miss K Price
Personal relationships that develop in the workplace have often led to difficulties for employers for a variety of reasons, not least when something unexpectedly goes wrong between the two employees involved. This was certainly the situation, in the Employment Appeal Tribunal case of British Gas Trading Ltd v Miss K Price.
In 2013, Miss Price had commenced a relationship with a male work colleague which had continued for a period of approximately 12 months until she received a call from the colleague’s ex-girlfriend. The conversation took place during a work break and indicated that he had been cheating on her, that the ex-girlfriend was in fact no longer an ex and that she had recommenced her relationship with the man concerned.
On hearing this, Miss Price immediately sought out her male colleague and lover who was working at the time on another floor in the building. She confronted him at his desk and caused a scene shouting at him and making obscene accusations. She also tried to grab him by the shirt and caught his chin with her hand in doing so.
So, how would you deal with this situation if it happened in your organisation? What action would you have taken against one or even both of the employees concerned? Miss Price had 12 years of unblemished service at the time that the incident had taken place.
Miss Price claimed her behaviour was totally out of character and confirmed she was sorry for the behaviour. She agreed that she should not have gone into the call centre and confirmed that she was upset and not thinking at the time. She also denied that there had been any clear evidence of any physical contact or verbal abuse at the time of the incident.
The company rejected her claims and confirmed she was guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed her without notice on account of there being “clear evidence that she made physical contact and verbally abused a colleague” and that this had undermined the trust that had been placed in her.
In its judgment, the original Employment Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was potentially fair. However, it also concluded that the investigation of the incident was unfair and unreasonable and there were no reasonable grounds for the employer’s belief in the gross misconduct alleged. The Tribunal also found that the approach to arriving at the sanction of summary dismissal was fundamentally flawed because she had “compelling mitigation that was not taken into account at either the dismissal or appeal stages”. Accordingly, they found that this was an unusual case in which a dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in all the circumstances of the case.
Additionally, the Tribunal also rejected the employer’s separate argument that any award she might receive should be reduced by reason of her “contributory fault”. On this particular point, the Tribunal concluded that her actions did not to any extent cause or contribute to her dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has, in its recent judgment, upheld this part of an appeal by the employer and has asked the original Tribunal to revisit the question of contributory fault. However, the original finding of an unfair dismissal still stands.
Therefore, the key message here for employers is that any mitigating circumstances or arguments put forward at a disciplinary hearing should always be considered by employers when reaching their decision on any disciplinary sanction, particularly a dismissal. The Tribunal system is one which tests all aspects of an employer’s practice and procedures when cases of this type come before them.
Contact Quest HR for advice on any such situation that may arise within your organisation or with guidance on grievance and discipline.
