Dismissal For Pulling a Colleague’s Hair?

30th January 2025

Jake McManus, Solicitor

A recent Employment Tribunal case involving allegations of swearing and the pulling of a colleague’s hair has drawn plenty of media attention. Whilst the nature of the allegations is what makes this case newsworthy, it is the rationale behind the Tribunal’s decision that employers should consider, specifically the importance of getting the basics right when dealing with disciplinary matters and acceptable workplace behaviour.

Summary

Mr Gregory was employed by P&O Ferries Limited for over 26 years. In March 2023 he reminded a colleague that her long hair should be tied back in accordance with company policy. Mr Gregory gently tugged the colleague’s hair in reaction to what he described as a “cheeky comment” that the colleague had made. In Mr Gregory’s view he had a good relationship with the colleague.  He did not consider his actions to be anything more than a playful joke.

The colleague thought differently. Later that day she raised a complaint against Mr Gregory, accusing him of putting his hand on her head and grabbing her hair so hard that it caused her some pain and discomfort. Mr Gregory was instructed to stay away from her following her complaint, however she also alleged that later in the day Mr Gregory whispered “You c*ck” as he passed her by.

P&O Ferries dismissed Mr Gregory for gross misconduct following an investigation and subsequent disciplinary procedure, the reasons being his inappropriate conduct and use of offensive language towards a colleague, and breaching the company’s Dignity at Work policy. Mr Gregory brought a claim of unfair dismissal against the company following an unsuccessful appeal.

Procedural errors

The Employment Tribunal Judge concluded that the company’s investigation and disciplinary process was “seriously defective” and “flawed”. In particular the Judge referenced:

  • The investigating officer personally assured Mr Gregory upon conclusion of the investigation that his job was safe. The officer later reneged on his decision following peer pressure by others not directly involved in the investigation to obtain more evidence, recommending that Mr Gregory be disciplined.
  • The investigating officer did not allow Mr Gregory to comment on new evidence (that being a second interview with the complainant).
  • Potentially important witnesses were not interviewed.
  • The chair of the disciplinary meeting was not independent.
  • Mr Gregory’s request to call witnesses to give evidence at the disciplinary hearing was denied.
  • The evidence demonstrated that nobody witnessed either of the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal held that P&O Ferries did not act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating Mr Gregory’s conduct as a sufficient reason to dismiss. As such, his dismissal was unfair.

Key takeaways

Employers must remember that following a fair and proper procedure is just as important as having a fair reason to dismiss an employee. It’s crucial that employers get the basics right in respect of process, not least because of the Governments incoming legislative changes to make unfair dismissal a ‘day one right’, meaning that the current two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection will be removed. In this case P&O Ferries made a litany of basic, preventable mistakes that rendered the entire process as flawed and therefore unfair.

The Tribunal’s comments regarding P&O’s workplace culture should also not be ignored. In respect of Mr Gregory’s alleged used of offensive language, the Tribunal commented that the culture of the workplace was one where “swearing was commonplace amongst staff, including managers. If Mr Gregory swore, he was only doing as others did on an ongoing basis”. In his evidence Mr Gregory recalled that offensive language was frequently used by staff, including the complainant herself, and that “touching” is something that had “always been done”, having even touched/pulled the complainant’s hair on previous occasions. Even if the company had carried out a watertight disciplinary procedure, the dismissal could still have been unfair given that there was no real enforcement of acceptable workplace behaviour by managers, who contributed to this workplace culture themselves, therefore it may have been unreasonable to single out Mr Gregory for workplace behaviour that was previously accepted.

We can help you by providing bespoke training for managers on handling investigations, disciplinaries and appeals. We can also deliver effective workplace training to ensure that employees know the standards expected of them in the workplace.

To find out more or for more general advice please get in touch with Jake McManus or call us on 0161 832 3434

 

Kuits FSQS registered
Kuits good employment supporter