Re:Calling your boss a dickhead is not a sackable offence, U...
by gowld on Thursday September 04, 2025 @12:14PM
(#45128903)
> Further, whilst not determinative in itself of whether or not the dismissal was
unfair, this one off comment did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct
so serious to justify summary dismissal for reasons that I have provided above.
That part of the ruling is independent of the company policies.
Re:Calling your boss a dickhead is not a sackable offence, U...
by IshKebab on Thursday September 04, 2025 @12:21PM
(#45128966)
Right but isn't the point that you can be fairly dismissed for things other than gross misconduct?
Re:Calling your boss a dickhead is not a sackable offence, U...
by scott_w on Thursday September 04, 2025 @12:51PM
(#45129328)
Yes, poor performance could be one. Breach of contract is another, for example, doing something counter to your job. This is different from gross misconduct, as gross misconduct doesn't have to be enumerated in your contract. For example, punching your colleague is both illegal and will likely get you fired for gross misconduct. My contract doesn't have a clause that says "don't assault your colleagues."
Re:Calling your boss a dickhead is not a sackable offence, U...
by d1sxeyes on Thursday September 04, 2025 @01:07PM
(#45129519)
Yep. But generally not instant dismissal.
Although apparently they did actually try to pay her for her notice period and she sent it back? This case is a whole load of fun to read through.
Re:Calling your boss a dickhead is not a sackable offence, U...
by d1sxeyes on Thursday September 04, 2025 @01:26PM
(#45129793)
128 covers whether it was in line with the company’s processes or not.
It’s actually not against the Equality Act to treat employees differently, as long as you don’t do it because of a protected characteristic.
The sections you quoted don't support this statement. The quoted statements highlight contractual clauses which include "excessive" foul language which one instance of calling someone a dickhead does not approach. The only point a single instance of swearing could be grounds for dismissal were against a customer, which is specifically highlighted in the contract.
Were the contract to include a clause of "you will not swear at other employees," then that would have been sufficient. Now, whether that falls foul of the Equality Act (due to discriminatory treatment) is a different question. You can't extrapolate any result of that from this case, however.