The claimant had been employed by the respondent company as an ‘In-Life Advisor’ from July 2007 until his dismissal on 20th September 2018. The role required the claimant to deal with incoming customer calls and deal with issues that arose.  The claimant had suffered from alcohol addiction and other related health problems.   A performance plan was in place that was helping him improve performance at work as well as cope with a period of abstinence.  The Tribunal did find that the abstinence was putting him under stress.

The lead-up to the dismissal started with a request made by the team-leader to deal with a customer query wherein the Claimant responded in a curt way to say that he would get round to it when he had a minute.  Within that shift, the claimant had an instant messaging session with a fellow employee when he asked if it ever felt like an ‘Uzi day?’ and stating that the only way people would be leaving the building was in a body bag.  Other employees went to the claimant’s line manager, Mr X, stating that they felt unsafe about the comments made.  Indeed, two female members reported that the claimant had shown them knives he had brought into work in the past.  The claimant outlined that the comments were only a joke and should be taken as such.  The incident was reported to the police.

The claimant proceeded to make a number of drunken calls over the weekend to the extent that this repeated the ‘joke’ relating to ‘Uzis’ and ‘killing 10 to 20 people’.  The claimant was suspended rather than being put on special leave as had been done previously.  Ms Y, in dealing with the suspension did it by phone rather than face-to-face, as she felt uncomfortable doing so considering the circumstances.

After the investigation detailing all of the messages, phone-calls and threats made by the claimant it was decided that it should be progressed as gross misconduct under the disciplinary procedure.  It was decided that the claimant should be dismissed considering the duty of care to all members of staff and that it would be too severe to allow the claimant to return. The claimant appealed this decision but this was unsuccessful with it being considered that dismissal was the only suitable penalty considering the claimant’s actions and the reactions from other staff members.

The Industrial Tribunal outlined that the statutory dismissal procedures had been followed in that there was notice in writing, a meeting and an appeal offered.   It was held that the substance of the decision fell within the band of reasonable responses as the employer genuinely had the belief that there had been gross misconduct. The Tribunal stated that even though the claimant outlined that he did not intend to cause harm it was wholly inappropriate to bring knives into the workplace and the messages/phone calls made did cause great alarm and distress. Accordingly, the decision to dismiss was regarded as fair and the case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case serves a very simple lesson for employees to not bring knives into the workplace and not to make jokes about killing other employees.  One is surprised that the claimant had the temerity to bring this case.  From an employer perspective, the statutory procedure must still be followed even in these egregious situations and moving from special leave to a suspension when there was fuller information known allowed for a much smoother process. It is important to note that the effect that it had on other employees was taken into account and that may be used by employers if they have to defend the decision to dismiss.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/