The next step

To the tribunal's ruling in the case mentioned in the article

[Weblink]

The Acas Code of Practice

[Document]

Misconduct

[Checklist]

Unfairly dismissed for Facebook “meat deal” post

Interesting case

The tribunal’s ruling in the case of Haywood v Noel Chadwick Limited 2017 certainly contains some interesting facts (see The next step ). Whilst it doesn’t set any groundbreaking new law, it does remind employers what can happen if they fail to act properly. Haywood (H) had worked for Noel Chadwick Limited (N) for 7.5 years. N is a small, but well-known and established, butchers business in Standish.

Breach of policy

In April 2016 N’s owners - John Chadwick (father) and Paul Chadwick (son) - discovered that H had posted a message to his girlfriend, Helen Burnett, on his personal Facebook page. It drew her attention to a “meat deal” that was being run by another supplier in the local area. Without asking H anything, the Chadwicks concluded that this post was an advertisement for a competitor and H’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct. They decided to sack H immediately and verbally called him to a meeting where his employment was terminated on the spot.

Tribunal’s observations

The tribunal subsequently noted that:

• H was not given any letter asking him to attend a formal disciplinary meeting
• no written reasons were ever given to him as to why the meeting was being called or why his employment was being terminated
• H was not advised in writing that the disciplinary meeting could lead to his dismissal
• at the meeting, H was not allowed to explain his actions or have a workplace companion with him
• H was not notified of his right of appeal
• when H requested an appeal meeting, N ignored it.

Reprehensible process

The tribunal drew attention to the fact that N had ignored the Acas Code of Practice and called the dismissal process it used “reprehensible” . It also thought it was “fanciful” of N to conclude that H’s behaviour was gross misconduct - the supplier was not a direct competitor and there was no evidence that N’s business had been harmed. This meant that, even if N had followed the Code, it’s unlikely a dismissal would have been fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Compensation plus 25%

H was awarded £6,091.00 in total and the tribunal applied the full 25% uplift as punishment for the employer’s failure to follow the Code.

Tip 1. The moral of this tribunal case is: do not ignore the Acas Code (see The next step ). Now that tribunal fees have been abolished it’s even more crucial you follow it.

Tip 2. Our misconduct checklist will assist you where you are dealing with any type of misconduct issue (see The next step ). It explains what steps must be taken so you won’t miss anything out.

For the tribunal’s ruling in this case, the Acas Code of Practice and a free misconduct checklist, visit http://tipsandadvice-personnel.co.uk/download (PS 19.15.05).