I find it fascinating to take a closer look at law cases which are covered heavily in the news to see what really went on.
A recent case that has been plastered across tabloids with iterations of the headline 'Barber who sacked employee for calling in sick ordered to pay her thousands' is that of a barber who sacked a member of staff in a WhatsApp message after calling in sick. Here're the insights I uncovered from this case followed by my advice to avoid a similar scenario, and a hefty payout, in your organisation.
Miss Thorley began working for Mr Christian Donnelly, trading as Acute Barbers, in 2018.
In the last week of October 2021, Mr Donnelly messaged Miss Thorley, requesting that she didn’t let him down on Monday as he was aware she was having a Halloween party that weekend.
When the following Monday came, you guessed it, Miss Thorley texted Mr Donnelly stating that she could not attend work because her stomach was ‘killing’ her.
Mr Donnelly dismissed Miss Thorley via WhatsApp, alleging that she had repeatedly phoned in sick on Mondays “because you’d [Miss Thorley] had a good weekend”.
Despite Miss Thorley’s warning of pursuing a claim, Mr Donnelly responded, amongst other things, that she could “crack on with all that legal sh*t”.
Miss Thorley duly obliged and pursued a number of claims against Mr Donnelly.
Unsurprisingly, the Tribunal found against Mr Donnelly, on the basis that he had not followed a fair process and did not have any evidence to back up his assertions.
This is one of those claims that, when reported by the media, doesn’t really dig into the fascinating findings.
The figure you will see reported was that Mr Donnelly was required to pay ‘over £3,000’ for this mistake.
In part, this is true, but it was not just all because of this decision.
The total sum Mr Donnelly was required to pay was £3,435.59 but it was made up of:-
One of the other claims pursued by Miss Thorley was that she had been discriminated against, i.e. her dismissal, which arose from her disability. Whilst the Tribunal found that her menorrhagia (heavy periods) was a disability, it did not amount to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and so this claim was unsuccessful.
It can be extremely frustrating when your team or managers are heavily reliant on an individual who then appears to have a pattern of such dubious absences.
However, that is no excuse for a lack of process. Failing to get the basics right, like not issuing terms, not following the ACAS code etc just writes even the most unworthy employee a cheque!
The main points to take away from this matter are:-
For further assistance with any of the information contained within this article, please do not hesitate to contact the Bridge Employment Law team on 01904 949008, email us at enquires@bridgeehr.co.uk.