Claimant v Clydesdale Bank Plc t/a Virgin Money
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in the misconduct (altercation with customer, refusing instruction, inappropriate social media post), reached after a reasonable investigation. A fair procedure was followed and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant showed no insight that he had done anything wrong and there was no pre-determined decision to dismiss.
The tribunal assumed (without deciding) that the claimant was disabled and that his conduct arose from ADHD. However, the claim failed because the dismissal was objectively justified: the respondent had a legitimate aim (avoiding repeat aggressive behaviour to customers and staff) and dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving it. The claimant showed no insight or remorse, so a lesser sanction would not have achieved the aim, and no alternative non-customer-facing role was available.
Facts
The claimant was a customer consultant at Virgin Money's Paisley branch. In December 2023, three allegations arose: (1) he had an aggressive altercation with a customer who asked him to quieten down, witnessed by two colleagues who considered pressing the panic button; (2) he refused a manager's instruction to work at the front of the branch, claiming it was too cold; (3) he posted on social media calling his workplace 'toxic as fuck' using the respondent's branding hashtag. He was dismissed after a disciplinary process. The claimant believed his behaviour was due to undiagnosed ADHD.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in the misconduct after a reasonable investigation, followed fair procedure, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The disability discrimination claim failed on justification: even assuming the claimant was disabled and his conduct arose from disability, dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preventing repeat aggressive behaviour, given the claimant showed no insight or remorse.
Practical note
Lack of insight or remorse for misconduct can support both the fairness of dismissal and objective justification in disability discrimination claims, particularly where the employer's aim is to prevent recurrence of harmful behaviour.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001244/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Consultant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No