Cases→8001509/2025

Claimant v British Telecommunications Plc

21 November 2025Before Employment Judge J ShepherdScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£10,926

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. The claimant was dismissed for matters not formally put to him in the disciplinary charges, including failure to report colleagues' comments. The investigation was inadequate, with no opportunity given to the claimant to explain before gross misconduct charges were brought. The decision to dismiss was not within the range of reasonable responses as the claimant's comment about Islamophobia Awareness Month duration was legitimate opinion, and the 'Arab bastard' allegation had been dismissed by the disciplinary officer but later resurrected on appeal.

Facts

The claimant, a Customer Service Advisor with BT since October 2019, was dismissed following internal investigation into Microsoft Teams messages. Three messaging exchanges were identified: a comment 'arab bastard' referring to a Dundee United supporter colleague, comments about Islamophobia Awareness Month lasting a full month rather than one day, and messages about visiting Auschwitz during a Poland trip. The claimant was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings that resulted in summary dismissal for gross misconduct in February 2025. Twelve employees in total were dismissed following the same investigation into Teams messages at the Dundee Contact Centre.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The investigation was inadequate, with no opportunity given to the claimant to explain before gross misconduct charges were formulated. The claimant was dismissed for matters not formally included in the disciplinary charges, including failure to report colleagues' comments. The 'arab bastard' allegation was dismissed at the disciplinary hearing but later resurrected on appeal. The decision to dismiss for expressing cynicism about the duration of Islamophobia Awareness Month was not within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal awarded total compensation of £10,926.46 with a 10% ACAS uplift but no reduction for contributory fault.

Practical note

Employers must precisely frame disciplinary charges and cannot dismiss for matters not formally put to the employee, and failure to conduct a proper investigation before determining gross misconduct can render a dismissal unfair even where some misconduct may have occurred.

Award breakdown

Basic award£1,973
Compensatory award£8,953
Loss of statutory rights£500

Award equivalent: 19.4 weeks' gross pay

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+10%

The respondent unreasonably failed to follow ACAS Code paragraph 9 by not providing full information about all disciplinary charges for which the claimant was ultimately dismissed. The claimant was dismissed for matters not formally put to him in the disciplinary notification. 10% uplift applied to compensatory award.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Strouthos v London Underground [2004] IRLR 636Nelson v BBC (No.2) [1980] ICR 110Renewi v Pamment UKEAT/109/21Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Foley v Post Office [2000] ICR 1283Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.123(6)TULR(C)A 1992 s.207AERA 1996 s.124AERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b)ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.122(2)

Case details

Case number
8001509/2025
Decision date
21 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
British Telecommunications Plc
Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Customer Service Advisor
Salary band
£25,000–£30,000
Service
5 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →