The Claimant in this case worked as an administrator in an accountancy firm as the only full time member of staff. She was employed from 2017 to 2023. The dates of continuous employment were quite an important feature of this case with the Respondent claiming that the Claimant resigned in July 2021 and resumed her employment in August of the same year. This argument was rejected by the tribunal.
In July 2023 the Claimant was dismissed summarily. The dismissal letter claimed that she had “engaged in private business activities” during work and this contravened the Respondent’s code of conduct. The Claimant stated that she was unaware of the existence of a code of conduct. The letter also referred to a “thorough investigation”, although the Claimant had not been invited to attend any meetings or disciplinary hearings.
The private business activities referred to in the letter related to time spent on the computer. The Respondent had placed spyware on the computer which logged that the Claimant had spent two and a half hours on the computer and half of that was in relation to websites that were not work related. The Claimant explained at the hearing that she had viewed Rightmove, Amazon and Very on her lunchbreak and she did occasionally use the computer for personal matters.
The Respondent argued that there had been issues with the Claimant’s performance in the six months leading up to the dismissal. The tribunal was not convinced by this and highlighted the lack of documentation. The Respondent was able to provide diary entries, but the Claimant alleged that these were postdated and written for the purpose of the tribunal hearing.
The Respondent also claimed there had been a prior written warning in place which the Claimant denied knowledge of.
The judge concluded that Ms Krauze, the founder of the Respondent, was aware of the two year qualifying period for unfair dismissal and had decided to terminate before that date had been reached (in her belief). The reason for dismissal was not clear, and the spyware was installed in order to gain evidence to support that decision. The Claimant was successful in her claim for unfair dismissal and was awarded £14,100.
For employers, this case highlights the importance of documentary evidence. If there are legitimate performance or conduct concerns then it is crucial that records of this are maintained and these issues are discussed with the employee.
If you have any questions on any of the issues raised in the above article, please contact Natalia Milne.