And speaking of things that, on balance, should not be said, brings me seamlessly to the case of Jones v Vale Curtains and Blinds 2024, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether an employee had been unfairly dismissed following an accidental email blunder.

Ms Jones was employed by Vale Curtains and Blinds (VCB) from May 2021 as a part-time administrator. Up until her dismissal in June 2023, Ms Jones had a clean disciplinary record and no other complaints from peers or customers.

In June 2023, she received an email from a customer, who had previously complained and requested a refund, asking to reschedule an appointment. Intending to forward the message to a colleague with a comment referring to the customer as a “twat”, Ms Jones mistakenly hit “reply,” sending the message directly to the customer.

Soon after, the customer’s wife called. Upon identifying Ms Jones, she demanded to speak to a manager and questioned the offensive comment. Ms Jones apologised and said her supervisor, Mrs Smith, would return the call. Mrs Smith later phoned the customer’s wife to apologise and confirmed that Ms Jones would be reprimanded. When Mrs Smith declined to offer compensation, the customer’s wife threatened to go to the press and social media. Mrs Smith said the matter would be investigated.

The “investigation” involved the Installations Manager, Mr Gibbons, reviewing the email. Without interviewing Ms Jones or the customer (or recording any findings) he recommended a disciplinary hearing, citing reputational risk. Ms Jones later received a hearing invitation and was informed the customer had contacted Managing Director Mr Rist and that Mr Gibbons had advised to “just get rid of [her]”.

The disciplinary hearing took place on 19 June 2023 and lasted 40 minutes. During a short adjournment, Mrs Smith consulted Mr Rist and decided on immediate dismissal. Ms Jones was not told of her right to appeal. Following the dismissal, in an effort to deter further publicity, Mrs Smith emailed the customer’s wife to confirm Ms Jones’ employment had been terminated.

Ms Jones later submitted an appeal, raising 14 points including the severity of the sanction and procedural failings, but her appeal was rejected.

Ms Jones then filed a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.

The claim was successful. The ET concluded that the principal reason for Ms Jones’ dismissal was not misconduct but rather to appease an irate customer who had threatened to damage VCB's reputation through negative publicity. This amounted to a dismissal for "some other substantial reason" (SOSR), which can be a potentially fair reason under the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, the ET found that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. VCB had conducted no real investigation into the incident; no one interviewed Ms Jones, no notes or evidence were gathered, and the same manager who received the customer’s complaint also acted as investigator, decision-maker, and disciplinarian. This lack of separation of roles undermined the fairness of the process.

The ET was particularly critical of VCB’s failure to afford Ms Jones basic procedural safeguards. She was not properly informed of the disciplinary allegations, was not given an opportunity to be accompanied at the hearing, and was offered no meaningful appeal. Furthermore, the ET found that the decision to dismiss her had effectively been predetermined before any process had taken place. Despite the gravity of Ms Jones’ mistake, the ET emphasised that fair procedure must still be followed. It acknowledged that VCB was placed in a difficult position due to the customer’s reaction, but determined that this did not justify bypassing the required standards of natural justice and due process.

The ET awarded Ms Jones a compensation award of £5,484.74 due to her loss of earnings and disruption to her employment status.

This case serves as a stark reminder to employers of the critical importance of following fair and lawful disciplinary procedures, even when faced with customer complaints or reputational risks. While the ET accepted that dismissing an employee to placate a disgruntled customer can constitute SOSR, it made clear that this does not excuse employers from adhering to basic procedural fairness. Employers must carry out a thorough and impartial investigation, allow employees the opportunity to respond to allegations, and offer a proper right of appeal. This case underscores that cutting corners to appease external pressures can ultimately prove more costly than managing issues through a fair and transparent process.