Mr P Thomas was a lead Personnel Officer with London Borough of
Hillingdon. He was dismissed for accessing pornography on the
internet from his work computer on several occasions. The council
had a staff policy in place which prohibited the accessing of
pornography and made it plain that such behaviour would amount to
misconduct.
Mr Thomas brought a claim of unfair dismissal before an
Employment Tribunal in Watford. He won his case by arguing that
while his actions did amount to misconduct, they did not amount to
gross misconduct. Dismissal can be justified in cases of gross
misconduct; but in cases of mere misconduct, the appropriate
initial action is disciplinary proceedings. Usually, this would
take the form of a formal oral warning followed, if appropriate, by
a formal written warning. The London Borough of Hillingdon appealed
the ruling.
It convinced the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the Watford
Tribunal had erred by substituting its own view of the seriousness
of Mr Thomas' conduct for that of the employer's – rather than
considering whether the employer's decision to dismiss was within
the range of reasonable responses of the employer.
The council also argued that the decision that dismissal of Mr
Thomas was unfair was a "perverse" decision. The Employment Appeal
Tribunal agreed.
The case highlights the importance for employers to cover
internet and e-mail use in an effective staff policy, which should
also clarify what amounts to gross misconduct.
This case was decided on 26th September 2002 and reported by the
Employment Appeal Tribunal on 15th January 2003.
