These tribunal cases can be so bizarre that they make you stop and wonder, “How on earth …?’?'” The story may be obscured under legalistic arguments but these cases shed light on the everyday workplace situations for many. Here are 10 bizarre employment tribunal cases in 2024, ranging from seemingly random remarks to sudden dismissals.
The phrase “Back in your time” could have been discriminatory
A tribunal judge ruled that saying ‘back then’ to an older co-worker could be considered ‘unwanted behavior’.
In an April case, Employment Tribunal Judge Patrick Quill stated that the expression “barbed and unwanted” was used to emphasize a gap in age between co-workers.
The judge did not find any clear evidence of the comment being made. A comment like this could have been illegal if it was made in a way that was not intended.
He added that older workers could sue for discrimination under the law because the comment “related to age”.
A nursing assistant in Kent was involved. Nursing assistant Ms Couperthwaite in her 60s sued her employer Hilton Nursing Partners for disability discrimination, harassment and discriminatory dismissal. She claimed that a younger co-worker had suggested an operation was free in the NHS in “your day”.
Couperthwaite was fired by the company on October 20, 2021 for not wearing PPE and a mask at the home an elderly patient. In her appeal she claimed she had been the victim of “bullying” and “discrimination”.
Watford Employment Tribunal dismissed her claim partly because Judge Quill did not find clear evidence of the comment made “back in those days”. He did note that if the comment had been made, it could have been illegal.
Two comments about rumpy pants were below the belt
In one of the strangest cases we have seen at employment tribunals, a female investment manager who was told that her pants made her look “frumpy”, lost her claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
Her harassment claim was based not only on the company’s supposed failure to support her Indefinite Leave to Remain request, but also the comment made by the HR director who said that her trousers looked like “a frumpy auntie or grandmother”.
The tribunal judge, in deciding on the comment made about her trousers, ruled that it was “unwanted conduct related to sexuality” as the comment was “inherently gender-related and had the intention or effect of violating [the claimant’s] dignity”.
The tribunal did point out, however, that the incident occurred in November 2020 and was therefore outside of the time limit for filing a complaint with Acas or the tribunal.
Three lecturers unfairly dismissed because they left early
A lecturer in further education was given more than PS50,000 in compensation after being unfairly fired for moving lessons ahead to allow him to leave early.
A unanimous employment tribunal ruled that Mr Barbrook wouldn’t have been fired by New City College, Hornchurch in east London, if a fair procedure had been followed.
Howden-Evans, a UK employment judge, ordered Barbrook to receive PS53,400 as compensation from the employer. She found that the dismissal decision was outside the range of reasonable responses.
She said that if a fair process had been followed, “there was no chance” that the claimant could have been dismissed. He may have received only a warning but most likely he would receive training in revised practices.
The 4 Sushi comments is not racist
After a Japanese language specialist and translator accused her manager of bullying, harassment and unfair treatment based on her ethnicity, her claim of direct race discrimination was denied by SOAS University of London.
“The comment was made with the knowledge that the claimant is Japanese and believed she would accept this positively.”
The employment tribunal considered a comment that was made by a Japanese woman to the claimant. She said that she and her family loved sushi .
The judge said the comment made about the Sushi Restaurant was made with the knowledge that the claimant is Japanese, and that she believed that this would be received positively. The judge stated that “she was trying to establish some common ground and making small talk.”
The dismissal of a professor was “astonishing”
In another bizarre case, this time involving senior figures from academia in Ireland, the decision of University College Cork unilaterally dismissing an economics professor has been described as “astonishing”. The Workplace Relations Commission of Ireland ruled that the HR Director had no authority in firing the complainant.
The adjudication officer stated that she would have given more money if it was possible.
Wim Naude received compensation of EUR300,000. This is the largest award made against an employer in the public sector ever. The adjudication official said that she would have given more money if it was possible.
Naude was working for the university in the Netherlands at the time of the pandemic, but he always planned to move to Cork. Students’ grades reflected his “exceptional performance”.
He found it hard to find a home in the city, but he traveled there regularly for work. According to university rules, he was asked to suggest interim measures. However, after doing so he found himself fired by the head HR.
The WRC adjudication office Lefre de Burgh stated that “by any measure” the case is “quite extraordinary”. He added that the most amazing thing about the respondent “puttingative, unilateral decision to terminate the complainant without any procedure or processes is that this was the case that the respondent university presented at hearing.”
Unfair dismissal of a woman who worked for 20 years without being paid
Since 2002, a wife and mother of 2 worked in a Premier convenience shop owned by her in-laws. She worked at least 40 hours per week, helping with deliveries, working the till, ordering products and serving customers.
She asked to receive a salary but was denied. There were no records of her hours worked. Her husband, unbeknownst to her, made HMRC declarations from October 2018 to December 2022 stating that she earned a salary of approximately PS12,500 per year.
She asked for a salary several times but was denied, and no record of her hours worked”
In February 2022, it was agreed that she would receive a wage of PS250 per week. This is equivalent to 6.25 euros an hour for a 40-hour workweek. In February 2022, it was decided that she would receive a weekly wage of PS250. This is equivalent to 6.25 PS per hour for a forty-hour work week.
She had to request the wage because it was paid in cash. There were no pay slips or records of payments. She resigned when they stopped in October.
The employment judge Moore stated in the decision: “We are not hesitant to conclude that the claimant has been constructively unfairly terminated for the primary reason or reason she took action to enforce the right to national minimum wage.”
7 German police officers dismissed for stealing cheese
It’s not a UK employment case, but it is still strange: in July, a German officer lost his appeal to reverse his dismissal for stealing from an accident scene 180kg of cheddar.
In 2019, the highway patrol officer was called to an accident where a container truck with a refrigerator had overturned.
He loaded nine large packages of cheddar cheese, weighing each 20kg into the police vehicle.
The Trier Administrative Court reported that after the investigation was completed, the policeman drove to the accident scene in a minibus. In his uniform, the officer asked a recovery company employee to give him some cheese packages that were not damaged. The total value of these packages was EUR550 (PS480).
He loaded nine large packs weighing each 20kg into the police car. Two packs were left at a police station social area, and one pack was taken to the car of a colleague. The other six packs are still missing.
German news site SWR reported he informed his superior officer the cheese was lying on the road.
A regional court in 2022 found him guilty of cheese theft and fined him.
8 Dismissed under non-existent zero-tolerance policy
Former ‘genius at Apple Store’ in London, won unfair dismissal claim after he “joked” with a Chinese co-worker about releasing a ‘deadly disease’ on the world. This was a reference to Covid pandemic.
The central London employment tribunal heard in this bizarre case that jokes about racial stereotyping were often made within the team. He said that he knew the colleague would get the joke. He didn’t mean to offend.
“No reasonable employer would fire someone based on a policy of zero tolerance that does not exist.”
Apple Store manager told the complainant in a disciplinary meeting: “We have zero tolerance for such behaviour at Apple.”
The judge said that the manager had in mind “a policy of zero-tolerance, which was at best his interpretation of another policy but was not stated in respondent’s relevant policy.”
It continued: “No reasonable employee would dismiss someone based on the application of zero tolerance policy which doesn’t exist. Apple is free to decide whether or not to implement a zero tolerance policy.
Age discrimination is 9 breaking wind to a younger colleague
In an unusual employment tribunal case that involved bullying, a judge in August ruled that blowing wind on a younger co-worker was age discrimination.
It was reported that a manager in his fifties at Birmingham City Council found it “amusing”, to hear a younger caretaker eating his lunch.
A tribunal of employment heard that after doing this, he said to the younger worker who was in her mid-30s “I can get you rid of like I’ve done the others in the previous.”
After being called to a hearing that he was unable to attend due his health, the younger worker went on sick leave and resigned in October 2022. Later, he sued the council.
Ten court claims over ‘dubious birthday leave’ fail
The claimant called a policy that allows good performers to take a birthday off as ‘dubious.’
Image: Ruth Black/Shutterstock
In September, we covered a bizarre employment tribunal case in which a solicitor lost her claim of constructive unfair dismissal after describing a Citizens Advice policy that gave hardworking staff their day off.
The claimant filed a constructive unfair dismissal complaint at the employment tribunal in Manchester based on an alleged breach the implied duty to mutual trust and confidentiality.
On an internal forum, the director for operations announced that a “Good Citizen Award”, would be launched in July 2023.
It was inappropriate to raise any concerns by describing the initiative as “dubious” in a forum that was open to all employees.
Every month, employees could nominate their colleagues who are excellent collaborators. The leadership team would review the nominations and award winners an extra day of leave on their birthday.
The claimant who began working at Citizens Advice Manchester as a lawyer in 2010 responded: “That sounds dubious to my ears.”
The chief executive then said that it was unfortunate that some had reacted so negatively.
The judge said, “The claimant admitted that her statement was poorly-judged. I agree.” “To call the initiative ‘dubious,’ in a forum that was open to all employees, was an inappropriate way to raise any concerns she may have.”
The court found that the chief executive was “reasonably and properly” entitled to support the initiative in the same employee forum and regretted the negative reaction from the claimant.
The judge said that the chief executive had no reasonable or proper reason to comment. “It is doubtful whether these negative people are truly aligned with CA’s values and culture”, he added. “I think this was beyond what is appropriate and proportionate for all employees to respond to these posts.”
This comment may have been hurtful, but not so seriously that it would breach the implied duty to mutual trust and confidentiality.
The judge said: “The complaint for constructive dismissal is dismissed because of this.”
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
Personnel Today has the latest HR job openings.
Browse Human Resources Jobs
