Claimant v British Telecommunications Plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissals of both claimants to be both procedurally and substantively unfair. The allegations were vague and inconsistent, the claimants were not properly charged with the breaches they were ultimately found guilty of, no reasonable investigation was conducted into context or mitigation, and no reasonable employer would have concluded that jocular (albeit inappropriate) comments on a private team chat constituted incitement to violence justifying summary dismissal, particularly given lack of training on acceptable use of Teams and the acknowledged need for employees to vent stress after difficult calls.
Facts
Two long-serving BT employees (Mr Khokhar, a customer advisor with 18 years' service, and Ms Miller, a high-performing team leader with similar tenure) were summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after making inappropriate jocular comments on a private Microsoft Teams chat in October 2024. The comments responded to a colleague venting frustration about another employee (who was not in the chat and unaware of the conversation). BT's corporate investigations team conducted keyword searches of Teams messages and produced a report alleging the claimants had incited violence. Both were suspended without proper investigation, charged with vague allegations that shifted during the process, and dismissed despite exemplary service records, with dismissing managers applying a 'zero tolerance' approach and predetermined outcomes.
Decision
The tribunal found both dismissals substantively and procedurally unfair. The allegations were inconsistent and vague, with claimants charged with 'inciting violence' but found guilty of bullying/harassment/discrimination breaches never properly put to them. No reasonable employer could conclude jocular (albeit inappropriate) remarks in a private team chat, made without knowledge of the target and in a context where venting was normal practice, constituted serious incitement to violence justifying summary dismissal. The investigations were inadequate, mitigation ignored, and decision-makers approached matters with closed minds and predetermined outcomes. No Polkey or contributory fault reductions were applied.
Practical note
Employers cannot retrofit disciplinary charges to fit predetermined dismissal outcomes, and even with clear evidence of inappropriate remarks, dismissal may be unfair where there is no proper investigation of context, culture, lack of training/guidance on acceptable use, and where remarks were obviously jocular rather than genuinely threatening.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 45.1 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001308/2025
- Decision date
- 24 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Tier 2 Level Technical Customer Advisor / Team Leader
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 18 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor