The background
The claimant, Mr Jeffries, was employed by Apple UK from December 2010 until his dismissal in February 2023. The events leading to his dismissal began in December 2022 when Jeffries made a controversial comment to his colleague, Ms. Liu, who is of Chinese descent. He remarked, “as long as you lot don’t spread another deadly disease on the world,” referencing the Covid-19 pandemic.
Another colleague, Mr Webster, overheard the conversation and lodged a complaint, prompting an investigation into Jeffries’ conduct. Jeffries claimed the comment was a joke, part of the banter commonly exchanged with Ms Liu in their workplace. Ms Liu, when later interviewed, confirmed that this type of humour was typical and that she had not been offended.
Investigation and disciplinary hearing
During the investigation, Jeffries admitted to making the comment, expressed remorse, and acknowledged his stupidity and shame over the incident. It is important to note that the investigating officer did not inform Jeffries that the complaint had been made by Mr Webster, not Ms Liu, leading Jeffries to go through the entire investigation process assuming it was Ms Liu who was aggrieved.
Jeffries emphasised his good relationship with Ms Liu, who had not shown concern at the time of the comment. Mr Webster, in his interview, noted that such language was out of character for Jeffries, indicating he might not have understood the context or the relationship between Jeffries and Ms Liu.
The tribunal criticised Apple’s investigation for not adequately focusing on facts or providing sufficient context. The investigation report accused Jeffries of breaching Apple’s bullying and harassment policy and failing to meet diversity and inclusion commitments but did not specify which part of the policy he had breached, leaving the allegations vague.
At the disciplinary hearing conducted by Mr Pegram, Jeffries acknowledged that his comment could be deemed offensive if taken out of context and raised concerns about the investigation’s thoroughness.
Mr Pegram classified Jeffries’ comment as bullying under Apple’s policy, despite Jeffries’ disagreement. Although he acknowledged Jeffries’ remorse, Pegram cited a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ for such behaviour as the basis for dismissal, claiming a risk of recurrence. Consequently, Jeffries was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Tribunal decision
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Jeffries, declaring his dismissal unfair. The tribunal noted Jeffries’ clear remorse and the lack of any reasonable basis for Apple to believe he would repeat the comment, therefore posing no risk. Furthermore, it also held that a reasonable employer would not classify that Jeffries had bullied Ms Liu.
The tribunal also felt the investigation involved inappropriate leading questions and to much reliance on speculation and personal opinions rather than objective fact-finding. Crucially, the tribunal found no evidence to support Mr Pegram’s assertion of Apple’s ‘zero-tolerance policy.’ This claim appeared to be Pegram’s personal belief, unsupported by any documented company policy. Pegram’s inability to reference any specific document confirming such a policy proved detrimental to Apple’s case.
The tribunal referred to Apple’s approach as ‘arbitrary, unfocused and inconsistent’ with their policies which rendered the process unfair.
Takeaways for employers
This case highlights the importance for employers to be precise and evidence-based in their statements during investigations and disciplinary procedures. Casual phrases, like ‘we have a zero-tolerance policy,’ can be fatal if not supported by documentary evidence. Employers should make sure they focus on fact-finding, which is their duty, rather than personal views to ensure a fair process.
Regular reviews and updates of company policies are important to ensure they accurately reflect the organisation’s stance and are consistently applied. Management training can help those conducting investigations understand the requirements for a fair process and avoid common pitfalls. By adhering to these principles, employers can ensure the process followed and the outcome is a fair one.
If you wish to discuss anything mentioned in this particular case review or any employment issue please get in touch with Aisling Foley or a member of our employment law team.
The background
The claimant, Mr Jeffries, was employed by Apple UK from December 2010 until his dismissal in February 2023. The events leading to his dismissal began in December 2022 when Jeffries made a controversial comment to his colleague, Ms. Liu, who is of Chinese descent. He remarked, “as long as you lot don’t spread another deadly disease on the world,” referencing the Covid-19 pandemic.
Another colleague, Mr Webster, overheard the conversation and lodged a complaint, prompting an investigation into Jeffries’ conduct. Jeffries claimed the comment was a joke, part of the banter commonly exchanged with Ms Liu in their workplace. Ms Liu, when later interviewed, confirmed that this type of humour was typical and that she had not been offended.
Investigation and disciplinary hearing
During the investigation, Jeffries admitted to making the comment, expressed remorse, and acknowledged his stupidity and shame over the incident. It is important to note that the investigating officer did not inform Jeffries that the complaint had been made by Mr Webster, not Ms Liu, leading Jeffries to go through the entire investigation process assuming it was Ms Liu who was aggrieved.
Jeffries emphasised his good relationship with Ms Liu, who had not shown concern at the time of the comment. Mr Webster, in his interview, noted that such language was out of character for Jeffries, indicating he might not have understood the context or the relationship between Jeffries and Ms Liu.
The tribunal criticised Apple’s investigation for not adequately focusing on facts or providing sufficient context. The investigation report accused Jeffries of breaching Apple’s bullying and harassment policy and failing to meet diversity and inclusion commitments but did not specify which part of the policy he had breached, leaving the allegations vague.
At the disciplinary hearing conducted by Mr Pegram, Jeffries acknowledged that his comment could be deemed offensive if taken out of context and raised concerns about the investigation’s thoroughness.
Mr Pegram classified Jeffries’ comment as bullying under Apple’s policy, despite Jeffries’ disagreement. Although he acknowledged Jeffries’ remorse, Pegram cited a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ for such behaviour as the basis for dismissal, claiming a risk of recurrence. Consequently, Jeffries was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Tribunal decision
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Jeffries, declaring his dismissal unfair. The tribunal noted Jeffries’ clear remorse and the lack of any reasonable basis for Apple to believe he would repeat the comment, therefore posing no risk. Furthermore, it also held that a reasonable employer would not classify that Jeffries had bullied Ms Liu.
The tribunal also felt the investigation involved inappropriate leading questions and to much reliance on speculation and personal opinions rather than objective fact-finding. Crucially, the tribunal found no evidence to support Mr Pegram’s assertion of Apple’s ‘zero-tolerance policy.’ This claim appeared to be Pegram’s personal belief, unsupported by any documented company policy. Pegram’s inability to reference any specific document confirming such a policy proved detrimental to Apple’s case.
The tribunal referred to Apple’s approach as ‘arbitrary, unfocused and inconsistent’ with their policies which rendered the process unfair.
Takeaways for employers
This case highlights the importance for employers to be precise and evidence-based in their statements during investigations and disciplinary procedures. Casual phrases, like ‘we have a zero-tolerance policy,’ can be fatal if not supported by documentary evidence. Employers should make sure they focus on fact-finding, which is their duty, rather than personal views to ensure a fair process.
Regular reviews and updates of company policies are important to ensure they accurately reflect the organisation’s stance and are consistently applied. Management training can help those conducting investigations understand the requirements for a fair process and avoid common pitfalls. By adhering to these principles, employers can ensure the process followed and the outcome is a fair one.
If you wish to discuss anything mentioned in this particular case review or any employment issue please get in touch with Aisling Foley or a member of our employment law team.