The difficult issue of when a dismissal for damaging an
employer's reputation can be fair was considered by the Court
of Appeal recently. Reema Jethwa from our Employment Team
considers this important case.
In a case called Leach v The Office of Communications,
officers of the Metropolitan Police's Child Abuse Investigation
Command informed Ofcom of allegations that Mr Leach was a threat to
children. As these allegations were unproven, Ofcom held several
meetings with the officers to ascertain further information and
question the reliability of the allegations. Due to the fact that
Ofcom is a public regulatory authority, they also sought the advice
of their press adviser in relation to the allegations disclosed to
them.
Ofcom was advised that even though Mr Leach's role did not
require him to have contact with children, the allegations carried
a 'significant risk of reputational damage' to the
organisation if they were true and were covered by the press. At
his disciplinary hearing Mr Leach denied all of the allegations.
Nevertheless, Ofcom made the decision to dismiss him based on the
advice that he continued to be a risk to children and also due to
the fact that these allegations posed a serious risk to Ofcom
should they later be proved to be true. The letter confirming his
immediate dismissal referred to the 'breakdown in the
relationship of trust and confidence'.
What does this mean for employers?
Although this case confirms that serious reputational risk to the
employer can be grounds for fair dismissal, employers should not
interpret this decision as giving the green light to dismiss in any
case involving reputational damage. In particular, the Tribunal
tends to frown on 'breakdown of mutual trust and
confidence' being over used. Importantly, when relying on
information from third parties, as was the case with Ofcom,
employers should adopt a critical approach to the information
received and should not simply accept it at face value. What this
case does show is that even though the employment in question had
no connection with children, an employer may still be legitimately
concerned about the potential reputational damage to their
organisation and may use this as a reason to justify the
employee's dismissal.
A case which illustrates the need for caution by employers wishing
to dismiss where reputational damage is alleged to have been caused
is Teggart v TeleTech UK Ltd. Here the Industrial Tribunal
in Northern Ireland held that the mere mention of the company's
name on Facebook was not sufficient to bring the company's
reputation into disrepute. The tribunal commented that
company's decision to dismiss Mr Teggart on the basis that he
had brought TeleTech into disrepute was "seriously
flawed". TeleTech's conduct policy stated that an act will
be considered to be gross misconduct if the employee brings the
company into "serious" disrepute. Although the
disciplinary panel found that Mr Teggart had brought the company
into disrepute, the panel had not considered the
"serious" element of that charge at all. Therefore, the
tribunal held that TeleTech could not have been satisfied that the
comments brought the company into serious disrepute.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.