Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

[[[NAME]]] (WR)

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No: 8002382/2025

Held in Edinburgh on 23, 24 and 25 March 2026 Employment Judge M [[[NAME]]]

Claimant

Represented by:

[COUNSEL],

[[[NAME]]]

[RESPONDENT]

Respondent

Represented by:

[COUNSEL],

Solicitor

JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Tribunal is that the complaint of unfair dismissal does not succeed and is therefore dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. The claimant was employed by the respondent from 21 August 1995 until 2 June 2025 latterly as a [[NAME]]. The claimant made a complaint of unfair dismissal which was denied by the respondent.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 2 2. This final hearing was listed to determine all issues. Both parties has professional representation.

3. A joint bundle of documents was agreed and lodged.

4. The respondent called the following witnesses to give evidence: [RESPONDENT] ([[NAME]] Manager); [[NAME]] ([[NAME]]); and [[NAME]] ([[NAME]]). The claimant gave evidence on her own behalf.

5. Both parties lodged written submissions. List of Issues 6. The parties’ agreed list of issues was as follows: a. “Was the Claimant dismissed? b. What was the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal? c. Is the reason or principal reason for dismissal a potentially fair reason within the meaning of section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996? d. If so, did the Respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the Claimant? e. Did the Respondent have reasonable belief that the employee committed misconduct? If so, was there reasonable grounds to hold this belief? f. At the time the belief was formed, had the Respondent carried out a reasonable [[NAME]]? g. Was the decision to dismiss the Claimant within the band of reasonable responses? h. What financial losses has the dismissal caused the Claimant? i. Has the Claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings? j. If not, for what period of loss should the Claimant be compensated? k. Is there a chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, or for some other reason? l. If so, by how much should the Claimant’s compensation be reduced? m. Did the Claimant contribute to the dismissal and, if so, should any compensation awarded to the claimant be reduced, and by what amount?” 7. In her ET1 claim the claimant stated that her dismissal was unfair on the following grounds:

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 3 a. “I have never disconnected a customer call;” b. She found it difficult to answer questions about the calls because the calls had taken place months prior; c. Calls are dropping due to system issues which are evident on some calls; d. She heard nothing between the [[NAME]] in January 2025 and the disciplinary invite in May 2025; e. The meeting invite had inaccuracies and the [[NAME]] meeting had to be adjourned; f. The reconvened meeting invite erroneously asked her to report to reception and referred to an additional call; g. She was unable to properly comment or defend herself because of the time lapsed; h. She has never received any disciplinary in 30 years of working for [NAME]; i. The misconduct is not serious enough to justify dismissal; j. She had no communication or support from her manager [[NAME]] at any point throughout; k. She did not have access to her P45 until late September.

8. In their ET3 response the Respondent stated that her dismissal was fair because: a. The respondent reasonably believed that the claimant had locally disconnected 5 customer calls and 1 internal transfer following a reasonable [[NAME]]; b. There were reasonable grounds to hold this belief following a reasonable [[NAME]] which complied with its own policy and the ACAS Code; c. The respondent acted reasonably in treating this [[NAME]] as sufficient reason to dismiss summarily. Findings in fact 9. The Tribunal makes the following findings in fact:

10. The claimant was employed by the respondent from 21 August 1995 until 2 June 2025 latterly as a [[NAME]]. The team handle the accounts of high-profile or high-value customers. Her role entailed dealing with [[NAME]] and

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 4 outbound telephone calls (around 5 calls a day) with a view to resolving issues and addressing changes to their contracts. Policies 11. The respondent’s Customer Contact Guiding Principles (8 pages) provides: a. “providing the best customer service in the country is at the heart of everything we do”; b. “If you are talking to a customer and the call is disconnected for any reason, as long as you've got a contact number to return the call, you should always call the customer back as soon as possible, apologise for the disconnect and carry on with the inquiry;” examples of behaviour that may constitute gross misconduct include: “hanging up on a customer and not calling the customer back.” 12. The respondent’s [[NAME]] policy (7 pages) provides: a. “We’ll carry out the [[NAME]] as quickly as we can”; b. “Suspension isn't disciplinary action and won't always be necessary. In some rare cases we might need to suspend you from work while we investigate”; c. “Gross misconduct is a very serious type of [[NAME]] which is likely to lead to dismissal and we've given you some examples below... Serious breach of the terms and conditions of your employment and public or [NAME]'s rules and policies… adding action or behaviour likely to damage the reputation of [NAME]” d. “Dismissal: If your [[NAME]] doesn’t improve after you’ve had a warning or all other levels of warning have already been used, we’ll terminate your employment. We might also terminate your employment if the [[NAME]] is particularly serious so that it is categorised as “gross misconduct””. [[NAME]]

13. Following an incident on 15 November 2025, the claimant’s line manager asked [APPELLANT] (“[[NAME]]”) to investigate her concerns that the claimant may have disconnected calls prematurely. [[NAME]] reviewed the [[NAME]] report for the period 1 July to November 2024 with a view to identifying calls where there were local disconnects (i.e. not remotely by the customer). ([[NAME]] monitors the actual activity of a call handler and then compares this with their scheduled tasks.) He then listened to calls with a view to identifying any such calls which appeared to have been disconnected prematurely.

14. On 9 January 2025 [[NAME]] held an [[NAME]] meeting with the claimant.

15. The minutes of the meeting note that:

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 5 a. All the calls were played for the claimant to hear. b. The claimant confirmed the Customer Contact Guiding Principles were probably something she’d read. c. The claimant advised that if there was a signal or a system issue that prevented her continuing with a call she would call the customer back and put a note in the system. The claimant advised that she used to write the customer telephone number on her notepad but she struggled to use the whiteboard or the electronic notes. (Notepads but these were replaced a few years ago with whiteboards and electronic notes for reasons of GDPR.) d. The claimant advised that she was not aware that a system called [[NAME]] captured the telephone number (unless withheld). Call 1 (Speech ID 455081493) e. On 25 July 2024 an [[NAME]] call was answered by the claimant; the customer couldn’t hear the claimant but there was office noise in the background; her headset was working; the call was disconnected locally (agent end); the call lasted 13 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues; the claimant called back the customer 2 hours later. f. The claimant stated that she had not hung up; that she attempted to call back a few minutes later but she called the wrong number; there were other customers who needed to be called.

16. On 14 January 2025 [[NAME]] held a further [[NAME]] meeting with the claimant.

17. The minutes of the meeting note that: Call 2 (Speech ID 45826730) a. On 12 August 2024 an internal call from [[NAME]] was answered by the claimant; the agent advised that the was call from a [[NAME]] and asked to transfer them; the claimant asked for the [[NAME]] which the agent advised; the claimant then asked for their postcode to be checked; the agent advised the claimant that the customer had hung up and asked her to wait a moment to which the claimant responded “okay thank you”; the call was then locally disconnected (i.e. agent not customer end); the call lasted 2 minutes and 15 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues. b. The claimant stated that she had not declined to take the transfer and that she had not hung up.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 6 Call 3 (Speech ID 458748586) c. On 15 August 2024 an [[NAME]] call was answered by the claimant; the customer gave their details which could be heard; the customer explained that their mobile signal was intermittent and latterly the claimant could not then hear the customer; the claimant said “hello?” to which no reply was received; the call was locally disconnected (agent end) 2 seconds after saying “hello?”; the call lasted 35 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues. d. The claimant stated that she didn’t hang up. Call 4 (Speech ID 460947251) e. On 28 August 2024 an [[NAME]] call was answered by the claimant; the call lasted 3 minutes 19 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed that there were 13 minutes system issues which started during the call; the call was locally disconnected (agent end) the claimant did not call the customer back once the system issues resolved. f. For a call to be disconnected requires a two-step physical action. Call 5 (Speech ID 463182761) g. On 10 September 2024 an [[NAME]] call was transferred to the claimant; the customer was making a complaint and was described as irate; the customer provided his [NAME], his postcode, full details of his complaint and that he was looking to cancel; the claimant said “bear with me a second” and placed the call on mute; there was no sound for 1 minute; the call was locally disconnected (agent end); the call lasted 2 minutes and 57 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues; the claimant did not call the customer back; the customer called complaining that no-one had called him back. h. The claimant stated that she had not hung up and she had not called back because she did not have his contact details. Call 6 (Speech ID 465805943) i. On 26 September 2024 the claimant made an outbound customer call; the claimant was trying to put through the customer order; she advised that “this is a new thing for me”; she stated “give me second, just a second”; the call was then locally disconnected (agent end); the call lasted 6 minutes and 16 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues; the claimant called the customer back. j. The claimant stated that she had not hung up.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 7 Call 7 (Speech ID 474313115) k. On 15 November 2024 the claimant received an [[NAME]] call; the customer advises that he is returning a missed call; the claimant asks who left a message and the customer identifies a colleague; the claimant obtains the customer’s [NAME] and states “give me a second”; the call was then locally disconnected (agent end); the call lasted 31 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues; the claimant did not call the customer back; the claimant sent a whatsapp to colleagues identifying the customer and stating “call dropped if he calls back in please apologise”; the claimant’s shift was due to end 3 minutes after the call ended. l. The claimant stated that she had not hung up; she didn’t call back because she must have been adding a note to another account; she didn’t change her code to finish early. Call 8 (Speech ID 476171230) m. On 27 November 2024 the claimant made an outbound call to a respondent [[NAME]]; the [[NAME]] answers but the claimant doesn’t say anything; the call was then locally disconnected (agent end); the call lasted 5 seconds; the [[NAME]] report showed no system issues; the claimant did not call the [[NAME]] back; it was apparent from the context that the claimant had called the [[NAME]] in error. n. The claimant accepted that she had disconnected because she had called in error.

18. On 14 March 2025 [[NAME]] prepared an [[NAME]] summary which noted that there were 7 instances of local call disconnects 5 of which were customer calls. He recommended that she be invited to a [[NAME]] meeting in respect of the following allegation: breach of Customer Contact Guiding Principles and failure to provide an acceptable level of customer service between July and November 2024 specifically: a. by locally disconnecting [i.e. hanging up on] customer calls 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and locally disconnecting an internal transfer call 2 which if upheld would constitute gross misconduct which may result in dismissal; b. By failing to update notes on three customer accounts and failing to call back customers on Calls 2, 4 and 5 which if upheld would constitute misconduct.

19. The claimant was not suspended at anytime during the disciplinary process.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 8 20. On 14 May 2025 the claimant was invited to a [[NAME]] meeting in respect of an alleged breach of Customer Contact Guiding Principles and failure to provide an acceptable level of customer service between July and November 2024 specifically: locally disconnecting 5 customer Calls 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, failing to call 3 of these customers back and failure to update notes on 3 customer accounts; locally disconnecting an internal guest list transfer on Call 2 and failing to update notes and call back the customer on Call 4; that the allegation if upheld would constitute misconduct; and enclosing a copy of the [[NAME]] notes and the [[NAME]] summary, [[NAME]] report, contact principles; and [[NAME]] policy meeting guide and given the opportunity to listen to the calls again. She was advised of her right to be accompanied.

21. On 28 May 2025 [APPELLANT] (“[[NAME]]”) held a [[NAME]] meeting with the claimant who was accompanied. The meeting lasted over 2 ½ hours. Calls 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were played and discussed. During the [[NAME]] meeting the claimant advised that if the call disconnects she would normally call back; for incoming calls she would confirm the phone number, originally when she was allowed pen and paper she’d jot the details down; where there is a poor connection she would normally give 3 or 4 prompts before disconnecting. During the meeting it was identified that the meeting invite itself did not identify calls 1 and 6 and did not advise of any risk of disciplinary sanction. The meeting was adjourned and revised meeting invite was issued which repeated the allegations set out in the [[NAME]] summary.

22. On 2 June 2025 [[NAME]] held a reconvened [[NAME]] meeting with the claimant who was accompanied. The meeting lasted 1 hours. Calls 1 and 6 were played and discussed. In respect of Call 1 [[NAME]] advised that you can hear call centre noise coming from her side of the call but not the claimant . The claimant advised that there may have been system issues for which she did not no log a system issue form because it was under 2 minutes. [[NAME]] advised that if there were system issues this should show on the [[NAME]] report even if she didn’t log a system issue form.

23. The meeting was then adjourned for 1 1/4 hours. The meeting then reconvened and the claimant was advised that she was being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct because “you have breached our policies by disconnecting customers and failing to call customers back which represents a significant risk moving forward.” The decision was confirmed by letter of 3 June 2025. The claimant was advised that the reason for her dismissal was that she had disconnected customer Calls 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and internal transfer Call 2.

24. On 6 June 2025 the claimant submitted an appeal against the decision to dismiss. The grounds of her appeal were in summary: she was a long standing employee with 30 years of service; the respondent’s [[NAME]] policy has not been followed because the initial invite did not indicate whether the meeting was

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 9 [[NAME]] or [[NAME]] and there was a change in the calls relied upon; there has been no communication from her manager; she did not know that telephone numbers were available on [[NAME]] and if she had training on it she would have used it to call back customers; she used to write down the telephone number on a notepad until this was not allowed and then she had no details to call some callers back; [[NAME]] was unable to advise if it would show as a customer or local disconnect if there was a problem with the system; prior to this no-one has ever raised the allegations as an issue with her.

25. On 24 September 2025 [[NAME]] ([[NAME]]) (“[[NAME]]”) held an appeal meeting with the claimant who was accompanied. In addition to her appeal grounds claimant queried why they only looked at a 5 month period; the broadband in her home is not good and there may have system faults when she was working from home; she confirmed that engineers had fixed this before the 5 month period but it still drops; the [[NAME]] policy says your line manager will keep in touch to provide support; issues should have been raised at the time rather than 12 months later; she struggled to remember calls that were months ago; her service history should have been considered; she accepted that she now had a whiteboard and would use it going forward; she queried why she was paid a bonus if she was not doing her job correctly; she had not received her P45. [[NAME]] advised she would provide the appeal outcome as quickly as she can.

26. On 30 [[NAME]] emailed the claimant providing access to her P60. She advised she would be on holiday until next week and once back would be in touch to conclude her appeal.

27. On 29 [[NAME]] sent to the claimant copies of the meeting notes for approval.

28. On 15 December 2025 [[NAME]] provided the claimant with an appeal outcome letter which stated in summary as follows: although the original invite letter contained errors that it was clear from the [[NAME]] pack which calls were under [[NAME]] and this was updated in the revised invite; she understood and acknowledged that more contact should have been provided from her line manger but the claimant could have reached out and the lack of contact did not affect the integrity of the disciplinary process; she has previously requested customer phone numbers from colleagues when a call has dropped; the lack of training on [[NAME]] did not create a barrier to calling customers back; she used their service checker tool to investigate and confirmed that there were no broadband issues at her home on the dates of the calls and she was satisfied that her broadband service did not impact on her ability to maintain calls or call customers back. She advised that she did not uphold her points of appeal and the decision to dismiss was upheld.

29. At the time of her dismissal the claimant’s weekly remuneration was £375 (gross) plus a pension contribution of 7%.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 10 30. On 23 February 2026 the claimant secured alternative employment with another [[NAME]]. Observations on the evidence 31. The standard of proof is on balance of probabilities, which means that if the Tribunal considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of an event was more likely than not, then the Tribunal is satisfied that the event did occur. Facts may be proven by direct evidence (primary facts) or by reasonable inference drawn from primary facts (secondary facts). 32. [[NAME]] ([[NAME]]) stated in evidence that that he believed that the claimant had deliberately disconnected customer Calls 1, 3, 5 and 7 because the evidence showed that there was a local disconnect, the [[NAME]] report showed that there were no system issues, and she did not endeavour to call the customer back straight away; he believed that this amounted to call intentional call avoidance; he discounted Calls 4 and 6 because the [[NAME]] report showed that there were system issues and the claimant had taken active steps to call the customer back. He stated in evidence that the decision to dismiss had referred to Call 4 because of an admin error but he did not consider that it amounted to gross misconduct.

33. The disciplinary process had unhelpfully used the 9 digit numbers to identify the calls (455081493, 45826730, 458748586, 460947251, 463182761, 465805943, 474313115, 476171230) rather simplifying this to a single digit (Calls 1 to 8). It is considered likely that this approach caused or contributed to the administrative error. In any event it was not suggested or put to [[NAME]] there was no admin error and he had not discounted Call 4. It was therefore considered likely that [[NAME]] had made reference to call 4 in error. 34. [[NAME]] stated in evidence that he considered that intentional call avoidance amounted to gross misconduct which entitled him to summarily dismiss unless there was mitigation which may justify a written warning. He stated that the claimant did not offer any mitigation for her [[NAME]]; he was aware of her length of service but it didn’t have any impact given the serious of the allegation and the number of instances; she knew that deliberate call avoidance was unacceptable and that the respondent has a zero tolerance policy.

35. The claimant accepted in evidence that [[NAME]] believed that she was guilty of gross misconduct in respect of Calls 1, 3, 5 and 7. Parties’ submissions 71. The parties lodged written submissions which were not spoken to orally.

72. The respondent’s written submissions were in summary as follows –

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 11 a. It was not credible that the claimant did not continue her practice of writing down customer numbers following the change from notepad to whiteboard and did not approach her manager for a contact number; b. The claimant relied upon issues which were not included within her claim and not addressed by amendment; c. The reason for the claimant’s dismissal was [[NAME]]’s belief that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct in relation to Calls 1, 3, 5 and 7 and this was not disputed by the claimant. d. [[NAME]] he held that belief on reasonable grounds: if the claimant had system issues which caused the call to end this would show automatically on [[NAME]]; Call 4 was the only call which showed system issues in [[NAME]]; Calls 1, 3, 5 and 7 showed as local disconnects and there were no system issues, it was therefore reasonable for [[NAME]] to infer that these calls had been deliberately ended by the clamant. e. [[NAME]] stated in cross examination that if there was a brief system glitch that caused an adviser to lose connection he considered it would not show on the [[NAME]] report. [[NAME]]’s evidence was that if there was a systems issue that did not cause a call to end, it would not show on the [[NAME]] report. However if a system error did cause the call to end, this would show on the [[NAME]] report as “closed”. f. The claimant accepted as obvious that hanging up on a customer could result in dismissal; the claimant accepted in evidence that it constituted gross misconduct. g. The respondent conducted a reasonable [[NAME]] (including reviewing [[NAME]] reports, listening to the calls, holding [[NAME]] meetings) and the claimant accepted this. h. The respondent has zero tolerance of hanging up on customers and will dismiss for a single incidence in the absence of mitigation. [[NAME]] took the decision to dismiss because there were multiple instances and the claimant did not offer any mitigation. He was aware of her long service and she ought therefore to have been aware of the respondent’s expectations. i. The procedure was fair: the claimant aware of the allegations and potential sanction; she was able to make representations; any delay did not impact the fairness; there was a thorough appeal which included further [[NAME]]. j. The claimant has taken adequate steps to mitigate her past losses. k. Her dismissal was wholly caused by her [[NAME]] and any compensation should be reduced accordingly.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 12 l. If her dismissal was procedurally unfair this made no difference to the outcome and any compensation should be reduced accordingly.

72. The claimant’s written submissions were in summary as follows – a. Call 1: [[NAME]] [[NAME]] manager stated in evidence that he did not have an issue with the local disconnect, only the failure to immediately call back. This should not therefore have been included within the allegation of gross misconduct. By contrast, [[NAME]] dismissing officer relied upon this as an instance of call disconnecting. b. Call 2: [[NAME]] [[NAME]] manager stated in evidence that his issue with the call was that the claimant did not accept the transfer. Despite this his [[NAME]] summary states the issue was the disconnection from the agent. c. Inclusion of Calls 1 and 2 created a false pattern of behaviour. [[NAME]] considered a longer period based upon his gut instinct that the claimant was disconnecting calls. d. [[NAME]] believed it was possible for there to be system issues which would not show up on [[NAME]] and which required an agent report. [[NAME]], dismissing manager, stated in evidence any issues on the system would show up automatically on [[NAME]]. It is unclear which are correct and as such this harms both their credibility. e. Call 4 shows that there could have been system issues that required to be logged by the agent to show on [[NAME]]. f. [[NAME]] understood that under the policy a customer is called back as soon as possible after a disconnect but the policy only applies “as long as you’ve got a contact number to return the call”. g. Taking 5 months to complete an [[NAME]] is entirely unreasonable and the claimant couldn’t reasonably have been expected to remember specifics of calls and hampered her ability to defend herself effectively. h. [[NAME]] was not a credible witness regarding policy and practice; he had no prior experience [[NAME]] call disconnects. i. [[NAME]] undertook no investigations of his own and he failed to notice the error in the meeting invite. j. He also erroneously included Call 4 in the instance of gross misconduct which shows carelessness in the [[NAME]] process. k. Call 3: she did not disconnect the call and accordingly there could be no failure provide enough prompts.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 13 l. [[NAME]] acceptance that there was a delay in the [[NAME]] process which was inconsistent with his position that the claimant should have provided information to counter the allegations. m. [[NAME]]’s failure to consider her length of service or exemplary disciplinary and performance record rendered the dismissal unfair. n. [[NAME]] was not a credible witness because of the conflicting evidence regarding system issues showing on [[NAME]]; he did not consider alternatives to dismissal; he carried out no investigations himself; he failed to include Calls 2 and 6 which entailed local disconnects which was inconsistent with the zero tolerance policy. o. The claimant could not provide mitigation given her position that she did not disconnect the calls. p. The appeal by [[NAME]] was a sham (there was no intent to meaningfully consider overturing the decision). This can be inferred given the zero tolerance policy for disconnecting calls and [[NAME]] was not aware of any [[NAME]] appeals being overturned. q. The claimant’s evidence was that she did not disconnect calls. It was pointless and would only infuriate customers. She could not always call back customers immediately because she didn’t always have their number and someone on the team may require to switch to taking [[NAME]] calls. It was not her practice to obtain customer’s contact details from a manager and she was not trained to do so. There were system issue at home and in the office and she would only log these if they were more than a few minutes. r. Call 1: the claimant’s evidence was that the customer could not hear her; it made no sense to call a customer and then not speak; it was possible that she ended the call because the customer could not hear her. s. Call 3: the claimant’s evidence was that the customer had connection issues and that she did not have the details to access the account. t. Call 5: the claimant’s evidence was that it would take on average a few minutes to identify the account and she was in any event not permitted to access the account without a password. u. Call 7: the claimant’s evidence was that this was a customer calling her colleague about a project she was not part of and it would be for the colleague to deal with the disconnected call which is why she left a message in the teams chat. v. The claimant’s evidence was that she did never disconnected calls with customers. The claimant’s evidence was that she was unable to record

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 14 numbers using the whiteboard due to smudging and she had difficulty work the notes screen on her computer. w. There was an unreasonable delay between the conclusion of the [[NAME]] and the holding of the disciplinary hearing in May 2025. The claimant was not suspended or monitored during this time despite her [[NAME]] being considered a risk to the business. x. It is accepted that the reason for her dismissal was [[NAME]] and that is potentially fair. y. The respondent did not consider it an ongoing significant risk to their reputation because they did not suspend the claimant and they did not progress the disciplinary process expeditiously which a [[NAME]] would have done. z. The delay in dismissing the claimant amounted to affirmation of the breach of contract by way of gross misconduct. aa. It is accepted that the respondent believed that the claimant committed misconduct but it is not accepted that this was held on reasonable grounds: [[NAME]] believed she was guilty of call disconnecting once he had listened to the calls and he was not open minded to her explanation; insufficient weight was put on her 30 year service and excellent performance and disciplinary record when considering 8 local disconnects over 5 months (November to July 2024); the belief was held because she was unable to provide explanation or mitigation but the claimant cannot reasonably be expected to remember calls from 7 to 21 months ago; the respondent unreasonably relied upon their electronic systems and a [[NAME]] would have taken statements from colleagues which would have corroborated the claimant’s position that there were system issues; appeals regarding call disconnects are not considered effectively. bb. The decision to dismiss the claimant was not within the band of reasonable responses: [[NAME]] failed to consider that the claimant had no prior warnings for [[NAME]] or performance before reaching the decision to dismiss; the claimant should have been trained on [[NAME]] to enable her to access customer details and call them back. cc. [[NAME]] deduction should be minimal and based upon her failure to always log system issues and/or obtain contact numbers from her line manager. dd. The respondent unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS code of practice by not holding the [[NAME]] meeting without unreasonable delay.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 15 Discussion and decision 36. The claimant has made a complaint of unfair dismissal. Section 94 of Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA 1996’) provides the claimant with the right not be unfairly dismissed by the respondent. What was the reason or principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal? Was the reason or principal reason potentially fair within the meaning of section 98(2)? 37. It is for the respondent to prove the reason for the claimant’s dismissal and that the reason is a potentially fair reason in terms of Section 98 ERA 1996. If the reason is in dispute, the Tribunal must either make findings in fact on balance of probabilities as to what [[NAME]] caused the employer to dismiss or find that the employer has failed to discharge the burden of proving the reason. At this first stage of enquiry the respondent does not have to prove that the reason did justify the dismissal merely that it was capable of doing so.

38. The reason for dismissal is a set of facts known or beliefs held which operate on the mind of the decision maker and causes them to make the decision ([[NAME]] v [[NAME]] and Anderson [1974] ICR 323, Court of Appeal).

39. Where there are multiple reasons for dismissal the employer must establish the principal reason. The principal reason may encompass one reason or multiple reasons which are said to justify the dismissal cumulatively or individually.

40. The reason for the claimant’s dismissal was that [[NAME]] believed that the claimant had deliberately and prematurely disconnected telephone calls. The claimant accepted that the reason for her dismissal was [[NAME]] and this was a potentially fair reason within the meaning of section 98(2). Was the dismissal fair or unfair under Section 98(4) ERA 1996? 41. If the reason for the dismissal is potentially fair, the Tribunal must determine in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case whether the dismissal is fair or unfair under Section 98(4) ERA 1996. This depends whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the respondent’s undertaking) the respondent acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimant. At this second stage of enquiry the onus of proof is neutral.

42. If the reason for the claimant’s dismissal relates to [[NAME]], the Tribunal must determine that at the time of dismissal the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct and that the belief was based upon reasonable grounds having

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 16 carried out a reasonable [[NAME]] in the circumstances ([[NAME]] [COMPANY] v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379, [1980] ICR 303).

43. In determining whether the respondent acted reasonably or unreasonably the Tribunal must not “substitute itself for the employer or to act as if it were conducting a rehearing of, or an appeal against, the merits of the employer's decision to dismiss. The employer, not the Tribunal, is the proper person to [[NAME]] the [[NAME]] into the alleged misconduct. The function of the Tribunal is to decide whether that [[NAME]] is reasonable in the circumstances and whether the decision to dismiss, in the light of the results of that [[NAME]], is a reasonable response” ([[NAME]] v [[NAME]]; [COMPANY] v Madden [2000] IRLR 827). The Tribunal must not substitute its own view as to what it would have done in the circumstances. Instead, the Tribunal must consider the range of reasonable responses open to an employer acting reasonably in those circumstances.

44. The Tribunal is not conducting a rehearing or an appeal but determining whether the decision to dismiss was procedurally and substantively fair. The range of reasonable responses test applies both to the procedure adopted by the respondent and the fairness of their decision to dismiss (Iceland [COMPANY] v Jones [1983] ICR 17 (EAT)). The need to investigate mitigation depends upon the degree of relevancy to sanction, whether the employee advanced any evidential basis which merited further inquiry, and the extent to which it could have revealed information favourable to the employee ([COMPANY] [[NAME]]).

45. In determining whether the respondent adopted a reasonable procedure the Tribunal should consider whether there was any unreasonable failure to comply with their own disciplinary procedure and the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The Tribunal then should consider whether any procedural irregularities identified affected the overall fairness of the whole process in the circumstances having regard to the reason for dismissal ([[NAME]] v [COMPANY] [COMPANY] [2006] IRLR 613).

46. Any provision of a relevant ACAS Code of Practice which appears to the Tribunal may be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings shall be taken into account in determining that question (Section 207, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992). The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures provides in summary that: employers and employees should raise and deal with issues promptly and should not unreasonably delay meetings, decisions or confirmation of those decisions; employers and employees should act consistently; employers should carry out any necessary investigations, to establish the facts of the case; employers should inform employees of the basis of the problem and give them an opportunity to put their case in response before any decisions are made;

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 17 employers should allow employees to be accompanied at any formal disciplinary or grievance meeting; employers should allow an employee to appeal against any formal decision made.

47. Specifically per the parties’ list of issues: Did the Respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the Claimant? Did the Respondent have reasonable belief that the employee committed misconduct? If so, was there reasonable grounds to hold this belief? At the time the belief was formed, had the Respondent carried out a reasonable [[NAME]]? Was the decision to dismiss the Claimant within the band of reasonable responses? [[NAME]]

48. The telephone call which triggered the [[NAME]] took place on 15 November 2024 (Call 7). [[NAME]] was appointed [[NAME]] manager and he reviewed the [[NAME]] report for the period 1 July to November 2024 with a view to identifying calls where there were local disconnects (agent end not customer end). He then listened to calls with a view to identifying any calls which appeared to have been disconnected prematurely (i.e. mid-conversation). [[NAME]] held an [[NAME]] meetings with the claimant on 9 and 14 January 2025 and prepared an [[NAME]] summary on 14 March. It cannot be said that there was an unreasonable delay in conducting the [[NAME]] over a period of 4 months which included a holiday period. 49. [[NAME]] interviewed the claimant who was the only direct witness employed by the respondent. [[NAME]] considered the materially relevant documents and other evidence namely the [[NAME]] report and the call recordings. There was no unreasonable failure to interview her colleagues for the reasons noted below.

50. The claimant submits that the [[NAME]] manager included Calls 1 and 2 within the allegations of gross misconduct by reason of call disconnects but in evidence he stated that the issue was the failure to call back (Call 1) and the failure to accept the transfer (Call 2). This opinion was not expressed in the [[NAME]] report and was not therefore known to the dismissing manager. [[NAME]] hearing 51. On 14 May the claimant was invited to a [[NAME]] meeting which was held on 28 May. Whilst the meeting invite itself did not include Calls 1 and 6 or advise of any risk of disciplinary sanction, the enclosed [[NAME]] summary included those calls and the possible disciplinary sanction. In any event, a revised invite

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 18 was issued on 28 May and a further [[NAME]] meeting was held on 2 June. The claimant was therefore informed of the allegations, warned of the risk of dismissal and given an opportunity to respond.

52. There was no unreasonable delay in holding a [[NAME]] meeting 2 ½ months after the [[NAME]] report was issued. Whilst it would have been good management practice, particularly given the size and administrative resources of the respondent, to have provided the claimant with an update between the [[NAME]] meeting in January and the invite in May, it cannot reasonably be said that their failure to do so affected the overall fairness of the process and rendered her dismissal unfair.

53. Contrary to the claimant’s submission, [[NAME]] dismissing manger did not rely solely upon the [[NAME]] report. He listened to the calls and considered the [[NAME]] report. The calls were also played and discussed in the [[NAME]] meeting.

54. The claimant submits that there was no reasonable basis for [[NAME]]’s belief that that system issues would automatically show upon on [[NAME]]. [[NAME]], [[NAME]] manager, stated in evidence that there could be system issues which would not automatically show in the [[NAME]] report unless the agent completed a system issues form which they were required to do. This opinion was not expressed in the [[NAME]] report and was not therefore known to the dismissing manager, [[NAME]]. The [[NAME]] report states “All instances were local disconnects with no system issues showing…I am satisfied that [[NAME]] has disconnected these calls.” The [[NAME]] meeting minutes repeatedly note: “no log out in [[NAME]] – no system issues”. [[NAME]] stated in evidence that that if system issues caused a call to end this would automatically show in [[NAME]]. Contrary to the claimant’s submission this did not harm the credibility of [[NAME]]. In his evidence [[NAME]] was clear and categoric in his explanation as to how cirrus, telephony and [[NAME]] were integrated. By contrast [[NAME]] stated in evidence on the issue “I can’t answer that…I’m not sure”. 55. [[NAME]] monitors the actual activity of a call handler and compares this with their scheduled tasks. The claimant submitted that the [[NAME]] report only showed system issues in respect of Call 4 because the claimant lodged the form which resulted in the entry “11:41 to 11:54 System issues” under the heading “Scheduled Activity.” However the [[NAME]] report also generated the entry “11:42 to 11:55 Closed” under the heading “Actual Activity” and these timings align with timing of the local disconnect of call 4. In the circumstances there was a reasonable basis for [[NAME]]’s belief that if a system issue ended a call this would automatically show in [[NAME]]. Contrary to the claimant’s submission, there was in these circusmtances no requirement to interview colleagues about whether they had experienced system issues.

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 19 56. The claimant submits that she was unable to provide any explanation or mitigation for the disconnected calls given the passage of time between the calls (arising in the period July to November 2024) and the disciplinary hearing (in May/ June 2025). Whilst it is accepted that the claimant would have been unable to recall these calls from memory, she was provided with a recording of the calls together with the [[NAME]] report. In any event the claimant provided her explanation during the disciplinary process namely that she’s never disconnected a call prematurely and the calls were instead disconnected because of systems issues. Further she submitted she could not provide mitigation because she did not disconnect the calls. 57. [[NAME]] believed that the claimant had deliberately and prematurely ended customer Calls 1, 3, 5 and 7. He held this belief on reasonable grounds because the recording of the telephone calls showed that the call ended prematurely, the [[NAME]] report showed that there was a local disconnect and no system issues, and disconnecting the call required a two-step physical process. At the time [[NAME]] formed that belief, the respondent had carried out a reasonable [[NAME]] by reviewing the [[NAME]] report, listening to the calls and interviewing the claimant.

58. The claimant submitted that the policy requires a customer to be called back as soon as possible after a disconnect but it only applies ““as long as you’ve got a contact number to return the call”. She explained she used to write down customer numbers on paper but she stopped doing this when the system changed to whiteboards or electronic noting. She explained it was not her practice to obtain customer contact details from a manager and she was not trained to do this. However the claimant was not dismissed for failing to call the customer back; she was dismissed for deliberately ending customer calls prematurely.

59. The claimant submitted that the errors made (exclusion of Calls 2 and 6 and inclusion of Call 4) showed carelessness in the [[NAME]] process and this is accepted given the size and administrative resources of the respondent. However that carelessness did not materially affect the substantive or procedural fairness of that process.

60. The respondent’s Customer Contact Guiding Principles provides that “hanging up on a customer” may constitute an act of gross misconduct which may result in summary dismissal in light of “serious implications on the customer experience, our company reputation and your colleagues”. The [[NAME]] policy provides that “any action or behaviour likely to damage [their] reputation” may constitute gross misconduct. The claimant was insistent that she had never disconnected calls and that “we shouldn’t need to ever…There’s no need to disconnect unless there is no further way forward”. The claimant stated in evidence that it would infuriate customers. It is understood from her submissions

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 20 that the claimant accepted that hanging up on a customer constituted misconduct.

61. Contrary to the claimant’s submission, the failure to suspend her was not inconsistent with the asserted reputational risk. Suspension of an employee is not a prerequisite for a fair dismissal for gross misconduct. Prior to the disciplinary hearing the respondent had made allegations but not findings of gross misconduct. The disciplinary policy makes clear that suspension is only used “in some rare cases”.

62. Contrary to the claimant’s submission, the failure to include Calls 2 and 6 was not inconsistent with the assertion of a zero tolerance policy. Call 2 was included within the contemporaneous reasons for dismissal but [[NAME]] stated in evidence that he would not have dismissed the claimant for Call 2 considered insolation because it was an advisor not a customer disconnect. Call 2 was with a [[NAME]] and not a customer. The claimant called the customer back after Call 6. Accordingly Calls 2 and 6 were materially different to Calls 1, 3, 5 and 7.

63. Contrary to the claimant’s submission, [NAME] did not unreasonably fail to consider alternatives or take into consideration her length of service or her disciplinary performance record. [[NAME]] stated in evidence that he could not issue a written warning because the claimant offered nothing in mitigation for her [[NAME]]; had she given mitigation her length of service could have been taken into account. It is apparent from their [[NAME]] policy that the respondent used the phrase “gross misconduct” to describe a very serious type of [[NAME]] which is likely to lead to dismissal without prior warnings. The ACAS Code recognizes that “Some acts, termed gross misconduct, are so serious in themselves or have such serious consequences that they may call for dismissal without notice for a first offence.” 64. The claimant’s submissions that any contractual breaches were historic and had accordingly been affirmed are strictly speaking irrelevant in the absence of a complaint for notice pay. However it is inferred that the claimant considered that it was unfair to pursue a [[NAME]] process in respect of historic allegations. Nevertheless it is not accepted that the allegations were unreasonably historic firstly given that they pertained to events arising less than 1 year prior to dismissal and secondly given that these events were not identified by the respondent until 7 months prior to dismissal.

65. In the circumstances it was not out with the range of reasonable responses for [[NAME]] to summarily dismiss the claimant for what he reasonably believed were 4 instances of the claimant deliberately and prematurely disconnecting customer calls (i.e. hanging up on a customer) over a 5 month period, notwithstanding the claimant’s 30 years of service without prior disciplinary or performance warning,

Case No: 8002382/2025 Page 21 given the express importance placed on customer service and brand reputation by the respondent. Appeal hearing 66. On 6 June 2025 the claimant submitted an appeal against the decision to dismiss which was heard on 24 September 2025. Whilst there was a delay of 3 ½ months in holding the appeal hearing it cannot be said that this delay was so unreasonable as to render the appeal meaningless. Although it would have been good management practice to update the claimant during that period it cannot reasonably be said that their failure to do so affected the overall fairness of the process and rendered the dismissal unfair.

67. Contrary to the claimant’s submission there was no reasonable basis upon which to infer that the dismissal was a sham (i.e. no meaningful intent to consider overturning). [[NAME]] appeal manager held a meeting with the claimant to discuss her grounds of appeal; conducted further investigations; and provided a detailed rationale for her decision. The fact that she was not aware of a dismissal for call disconnects being overturned on appeal did not provide a reasonable basis for any inference that it was a sham. Conclusion 68. The respondent had a reasonable belief that the claimant had deliberately and prematurely disconnected customer calls (i.e. hung up on customers). The respondent had carried out a reasonable [[NAME]] and formed that belief on reasonable grounds. The respondent is a [[NAME]] with significant administrative resources and a dedicated HR function. Having regard to the size and administrative resources of the respondent and the disciplinary process as a whole, there was no unreasonable failure to comply with their own disciplinary procedure or the ACAS Code of Practice. The respondent acted reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant notwithstanding her long service without prior warning.

69. Determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case the claimant’s dismissal was fair and her complaint of unfair dismissal is accordingly dismissed.

Date sent to parties: 30 April 2026