The People Bulletin

Ms Ricketts brought a case against Parson Cross Domestic Abuse Project because she believed that her case hadn’t been dealt with consistently. Ms Ricketts, who worked as a support worker for victims of domestic abuse, admitted to attending work under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently dismissed from her position for gross misconduct. She brought a claim against her employer as her manager, Ms Cox, who had previously attended work drunk but had not faced any disciplinary action.

Ms Ricketts had a history of sickness absence, in 2008 she entered in to an alcohol detox programme and was suffering from occupational stress. She saw an occupational health adviser, who explained to the project that her job was demanding, and that it was essential that the project have a policy on managing stress and the support available to help staff to cope with occupational stress. 

In January 2010 Ms Ricketts attended work. Uncontested evidence from her colleagues stated that she was behaving strangely. When asked if she wanted a drink – meaning tea or coffee – she laughed “quite hysterically”. Her speech was slurred and her movements were very slow and deliberate. One witness remembered Ms Ricketts moving her hand as if to scratch her face, but missing, as if she could not coordinate her movements. The matter was reported to Ms Cox, who sent Ms Ricketts home. 

Ms Cox explained to Ms Ricketts that the company would follow its sickness absence procedure, and might obtain a doctor’s report. She also indicated that disciplinary action was appropriate. Ms Ricketts was suspended and later dismissed from her position.

Ms Ricketts appealed her dismissal arguing that it was "punitive rather than…corrective", and that a warning would have been more appropriate given her circumstances. Her appeal was rejected and she commenced Tribunal proceedings claiming unfair dismissal.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The project had effectively singled out Ms Ricketts by comparison with its treatment of Ms Cox, and had not taken into account Ms Ricketts’ personal circumstances. The project should have made enquiries to satisfy itself as to the cause and effect of Ms Ricketts attending work drunk on 20 January, as well as the impact of the medication she was taking. Given the fact that Ms Ricketts’ GP had identified her alcohol difficulties as a medical problem, the project should not have treated the matter as a single act of misconduct. 

The tribunal accepted that Ms Ricketts had contributed in part to her dismissal by attending work under the influence of alcohol and held that the compensation she received should be reduced by 10%. 

This case also demonstrates that, whilst it is useful for employers to have a list of actions that may constitute gross misconduct set out in their disciplinary policies, they should ensure that they always carefully consider the circumstances of each case when determining whether the action should be considered to be gross misconduct or negligence rather than instantly dismissing for a breach of a disciplinary rule.

http://www.clarkslegal.com/

www.xperthr.co.uk