Cases8000700/2024

Claimant v Southern Electric Power Distribution plc

26 February 2025Before Employment Judge D HoeyScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal (conduct), conducted a reasonable investigation, genuinely believed in the claimant's guilt, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing for gross misconduct. The claimant had shared pornographic, offensive and discriminatory content on WhatsApp groups with colleagues, in breach of company policies on harassment, discrimination and social media, and failed to challenge inappropriate behaviour despite his perceived senior role. Dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

Facts

The claimant, a Tree Cutter Surveyor employed from May 2021, was dismissed in February 2024 for gross misconduct after an investigation revealed he had sent and received pornographic, offensive and discriminatory content on WhatsApp groups with colleagues. The groups, called 'Work Stuff Only' and 'Banter', were used throughout the working day and included work-related messages interspersed with inappropriate material including pornographic videos, racist and ableist content, and references mocking disabilities and sexual assault. The claimant, who was perceived as second-in-command in his team, failed to challenge the behaviour and actively participated. The respondent, a large energy company with strong diversity and inclusion policies, conducted a thorough investigation involving 13 employees and a 208-page report, held a disciplinary hearing, and dismissed the claimant. An appeal was unsuccessful.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt following a reasonable investigation, that the claimant's conduct constituted gross misconduct in breach of the respondent's harassment, discrimination and social media policies, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses available to the employer. The tribunal applied the Burchell test and found the procedure followed was fair, the claimant was given full opportunity to respond, and the sanction was proportionate given the seriousness of the conduct, the respondent's size and clear policy stance on diversity and inclusion.

Practical note

Even on private WhatsApp groups, employees can be fairly dismissed for sharing discriminatory and pornographic content where there is a clear work nexus, the employer has robust equality policies, and the employee has received relevant training and holds a position of responsibility.

Legal authorities cited

Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Grundy (Teddington) Ltd v Willis HSBC Bank Plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden [2000] ICR 1283Ilea v Gravett [1988] IRLR 487Gray Dunn v Edwards EAT/324/79RSPB v Croucher [1984] IRLR 425Ulsterbus v Henderson [1989] IRLR 251Babapulle v Ealing [2013] IRLR 854Strouthous v London Underground [2004] IRLR 636BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111West Midland v Tipton [1986] ICR 192Taylor v OCS [2006] IRLR 613W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] ICR 662

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(2)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(1)

Case details

Case number
8000700/2024
Decision date
26 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
energy
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Tree Cutter Surveyor
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No