UK: Festive Fall-Outs: A Seasonal Headache For Employers

Last Updated: 17 December 2015
Article by Clare Gilroy-Scott

Even the best laid plans in preparation for workplace functions may not work out and employers can be left having to address the fall-outs formally. Two recent tribunal cases have addressed the inconsistent treatment of employees following work parties which involved the wrong kind of "punch" altogether. Other than giving us an unprecedented opportunity to include a genuinely topical rather than gratuitous picture of a llama in a Santa hat, a lot can be learned from these decisions about how the tribunals approach arguments of disparate treatment.

Westlake v ZSL London Zoo (ET/2201118/2015)

The facts of the case arose from events at the ZSL London Zoo's Christmas party when a meerkat handler got into a fight with a monkey specialist over a llama keeper.

Mr Davies (the llama keeper) was the former boyfriend of Ms Saunders (the monkey specialist).  At the time of the event Mr Davies was going out with Ms Westlake (the meerkat handler). Before the event Ms Westlake had some wine and nibbles with colleagues. The party was held at the Zoo and began with a buffet at which employees were given one ticket to exchange for an alcoholic drink. There was also a paying bar.

There was differing evidence about how the incident started, whether there was provocation, who hit first and how it escalated, because there were no direct witnesses. The Employment Tribunal (ET) chose to "neutrally" describe it as an "altercation" but this may have been an understatement. It ended with Ms Saunders being struck in the face with a glass that Ms Westlake was holding, resulting in a deep cut to her cheek. Ms Westlake herself suffered a bruised arm and post-traumatic stress. Ms Westlake claimed that Ms Saunders had hit her in the face first and put her hands round her neck and that when she hit out she did not recall that she was holding a glass.

Ms Westlake was dismissed while Ms Saunders was banned from work social events and given a final written warning.

Ms Westlake brought a claim against ZSL London Zoo for unfair dismissal arguing the inconsistency of treatment. ET held that a reasonable employer could not have reached the decision to dismiss one employee (Ms Westlake) and only give the other protagonist (Ms Saunders) a final written warning. The reasons given by London Zoo for the disparate treatment had been the extent of Ms Sanders' injury (in comparison to Ms Westlake's), a "gut feel" that some witnesses were not telling the truth and that Ms Westlake had been more culpable.

The ET found that it was not reasonable to reach a decision that the entire responsibility for the incident should be placed on Ms Westlake simply because Ms Saunders had suffered the greater physical injury. The evidence did not support a basis upon which the Zoo could differentiate between the behaviour of the two employees and the ET held that the decision to dismiss Ms Westlake was unfair. Ms Westlake was not awarded any compensation on the basis that the outcome would have remained the same in any event.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the second case came to a different conclusion.

MBNA Ltd v Jones [2015] UKEAT/0120/15/MC

WARNING:  THE FOLLOWING CASE REPORT CONTAINS LANGUAGE WHICH SOME READERS MAY FIND OFFENSIVE

MBNA Ltd celebrated its 20th anniversary with an event at Chester Racecourse. MBNA informed its staff that this was a work event, that normal standards of behaviour and conduct would apply and that misbehaviour would be dealt with under MBNA's procedures and guidelines. The event was attended by Mr Jones and Mr Battersby, both MBNA employees, and Mr Battersby's sister. Mr Jones started drinking before the event at around 5pm. Mr Battersby had started drinking earlier, at around midday.

Early during the event at the Racecourse there had been an incident which appeared to involve Mr Battersby kneeing Mr Jones in the back of his leg and Mr Jones licking Mr Battersby's face. This was witnessed by other staff who regarded it only as "fun/banter". At a later point Mr Battersby saw Mr Jones with his arm around Mr Battersby's sister. He went over to them and kneed Mr Jones in the leg again. Mr Jones punched Mr Battersby in the face.

Mr Jones left the event at the Racecourse and went to a club with some others. Mr Battersby waited outside the club and texted Mr Jones seven times, threatening to rip his "fucking head off". Mr Battersby, by text, invited Mr Jones to leave, saying he would follow him to where he was staying and rip his "fucking bastard head off". Mr Battersby did not, however, carry out his threats and Mr Jones did not receive these texts until the following day.

Disciplinary proceedings against Mr Battersby

Mr Battersby was found to have sent texts which were of an "extremely violent nature and were wholly inappropriate". However, the decision of MBNA was that they were sent as an immediate response to the punch in the face and that it was not the intention of Mr Battersby to follow through on those threats. Mr Battersby was given a final written warning.

Disciplinary proceedings against Mr Jones

Mr Jones was charged with punching Mr Battersby and in relation to behaviour which had the potential to seriously impair the reputation of the bank. Mr Jones argued that Mr Battersby had caused him a dead leg by kneeing him and that he had lashed out in self-defence. Mr Jones was dismissed.

MBNA did not agree that there had been substantive provocation to lead to his punching Mr Battersby. It was felt that Mr Jones had started the altercation by licking Mr Battersby's face and that the kneeing was not "not done with any force or aggression". As this happened at an MBNA event, it was concluded that the behaviour could have impacted the reputation of MBNA.

At the internal appeal, it was found that although there was provocation by Mr Battersby, it was not enough to justify a punch in the face.  The appeal officer himself felt that both Mr Battersby and Mr Jones should have been dismissed. He knew that Mr Battersby had not been dismissed and he had questioned this decision but this did not make him consider that dismissal was excessive in relation to Mr Jones.

Was this "disparate treatment" which meant that the dismissal of Mr Jones was unfair?

The ET considered the dismissal of Mr Jones to be unfair because there was inconsistency of treatment between Mr Jones and Mr Battersby by MBNA.

The EAT overturned this decision emphasising the "range of reasonable ways" in which an employer might react to the circumstances. The ET should have considered the question in relation to the employee whose case it is considering and commented that the "mere fact that the employer was unduly lenient" to another employee was "neither here nor there".

The EAT emphasised that arguments about disparity of treatment must be considered with "particular care" and referred to previous case law which set out the following:

  1. If there is evidence that the employees have been led by their employer to believe that certain categories of conduct will be either overlooked, or at least will not be dealt with by the sanction of dismissal.
  2. If there is evidence about decisions made in other cases which supports an inference that the purported reason stated by the employer is not the real or genuine reason for the dismissal.
  3. If there is evidence as to decisions made by the employer in truly parallel circumstances which may be sufficient to support an argument that some other lesser penalty would be appropriate in the circumstances.

The conclusion of the EAT in relation to Mr Jones and Mr Battersby related to point number 3, i.e. whether a decision made in truly parallel circumstances made it unreasonable for an employer to dismiss.

Were the actions of Mr Jones and Mr Battersby sufficiently similar so that a disparity argument was appropriate? The EAT felt that they were not.  Mr Jones had attended an event, having been expressly told that MBNA's disciplinary rules would apply, but punched someone in the face. Mr Battersby did not do this. The EAT described Mr Battersby's conduct as "plainly reprehensible" but noted that he had not in fact carried out his threat in the workplace or elsewhere.

Had MBNA had reached a reasonable conclusion regarding Mr Jones, regardless of its treatment of Mr Battersby? Their conclusion was that as Mr Jones had not been "provoked beyond measure" and his conduct was gross misconduct, then it was reasonable for MBNA to dismiss him. The EAT overturned the ET's finding of unfair dismissal.

Practical points to take from these decisions

  • Is your policy on fighting or other misconduct at workplace functions sufficiently clear in terms of likely sanctions?
  • Are employees aware of the policy?
  • Consider the circumstances carefully and carry out a thorough investigation.
  • Was the conduct sufficiently similar? Although the conduct may have arisen in the same incident, this fact alone will not be a conclusive indication that the circumstances are truly parallel (as it was not in the MBNA case).
  • Factors that are likely to be relevant when considering sanctions are length of service, previous disciplinary records and conduct, culpability and provocation.
  • Is there sufficient evidence pointing to culpability? In a case, like the London Zoo case, where there is a fight involving two employees but there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusive finding about, for example, culpability or to distinguish the conduct of the two individuals involved, it is likely to be outside the band of reasonable responses to dismiss one employee and not the other.

Whilst in many circumstances it will be reasonable for an employer to dismiss an employee for a fight in the workplace it is essential that you consider all the circumstances of a case, including who started the fight, the nature of the dispute, whether there were sufficient internal prohibitions on such behaviour and the extent of internal investigations. Although cases have shown that an employer may fairly dismiss all employees involved in a workplace fight without getting into the detail as to which employee was more culpable, each case will be facts specific and the evidence (and quality of that evidence) will vary. If you want to dismiss one but not another employee involved in a fight, you will need to be prepared to face arguments of inconsistent treatment and provide clear evidence of deliberation and reasoning.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.