The claimant had worked for the respondent, a company operating a call centre, for approximately eight years as a customer support worker. The respondent raised concerns about the claimant’s work; namely that he failed to respond to requests for live e-mail chats from customers, letting those requests pass to other employees and in some cases letting them be abandoned. He was invited to an initial fact-finding meeting when it was put to him about the large amount of unanswered calls and he initially blamed the situation on colleagues who took excessive breaks and missed chats themselves. At further meetings the claimant raised different reasons for the unacceptable behaviour.

The respondent investigated the matter, including interviewing other colleagues who worked in the same area, and considered that the claimant’s explanations were questionable. After formal disciplinary proceedings he was subsequently dismissed on the ground of misconduct and unsuccessfully appealed. The tribunal held that the dismissal had been procedurally fair and also substantively fair.

Practical Lessons

The claimant’s excuses for his conduct varied from meeting, but it is noteworthy that the in the month prior to his dismissal the respondent accepted that his performance actually improved. The tribunal also pointed to the fact that during the period of November-January, when all of the calls were missed, he had failed to ask for support. In other circumstances, a ‘reasonable’ employer may have been expected to help and support an employee who is legitimately struggling and reasonable steps could be put in place to assist.

However, on these facts the employer was clearly suspicious of the excuses being made. The tribunal specifically noted that the employer was entitled to question the claimant’s explanations and that he had adopted a “settled policy” of ignoring his responsibilities. Employers are entitled to question an employee’s excuses when justifiable reasons exist, and this is also true in cases of employee sickness. This is case sensitive though and this was a case where the claimant’s varied excuses raised serious question marks about his credibility and work performance.