It was a real d–k move.
Cursing out the brass might seem like a justifiably fireable offense. However, a UK supervisor was awarded over $40,000 after a court ruled that she was wrongfully canned for labeling her boss a “d–khead.”
“Although her comments were inappropriate and regrettable, they did not justify summary dismissal,” declared Judge Sonia Boyes at the tribunal, the Daily Mail reported.
Since 2018, Kerrie Herbert had reportedly worked at the scaffolding and brickwork company Main Group Services alongside her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Thomas and Anna Swannell, who served as operations manager and managing director respectively, personneltoday.com reported.
Her duties at the Northampton-based gig, which reportedly paid her over $50,000 a year, included supervising the office’s day-to-day operations, overseeing payroll, arranging meetings and filling in for administrators.
However, one day in May 2022, while Herbert was rummaging through one of the manager’s drawers to complete an admin task, she discovered documents pertaining to the cost of employing her. The supervisor told the tribunal this discovery was “extremely upsetting” as she believed she was going to be terminated.
The overseer was subsequently invited to a meeting, where her boss, Thomas Swannell, reprimanded her over her performance. He said that he and his wife were not happy with how she ran the office, claiming that suppliers weren’t paid on time and that there were problems with bookings.
Herbert reportedly began to cry and proceeded to lay into her employer. “If it was anyone else in this position, they would have walked years ago due to the goings on in the office, but it is only because of you two d–kheads that I stayed,” declared the distraught Brit.
According to her testimony, Thomas reportedly responded, “Don’t call me a f–king d–khead or my wife. That’s it, you’re sacked. Pack your kit and f–k off.”
When Herbert asked if he’d really given her the boot, the irate boss responded, “Yes, I have, now f–k off.”
The ex-supervisor later told the court that her “d–khead” comment had been made in jest and later sued the firm for unfair dismissal.
And while the company claimed she’d been canned for poor performance at work, Judge Boyles ruled in her favor, claiming that the firm had not “acted reasonably in all the circumstances in treating [her] conduct as a sufficient reason to dismiss her.”
The court was informed that under her contract’s terms, she could be sacked over “the provocative use of insulting or abusive language,” but only if she’d be given a warning first. The document stipulated that only serious violations, such as “threatening and intimidating language,” would warrant Herbert’s termination.
In accordance, Judge Boyes concluded that Herbert had been fired in the “heat of the moment because of her behavior on that date, namely her comments about Anna and Thomas Swannell.”
“I find that the reason for her dismissal on that date was her conduct at that meeting,” she declared, adding that while the comments were certainly inappropriate, they were not grounds for a sacking.
“[Ms Herbert] sought clarification from Mr Swannell and he confirmed that he was dismissing her,” Boyes said. “The company’s disciplinary procedure was not followed. [Ms Herbert] was not given notice of the termination of her employment nor was she paid in lieu of that notice.”
She found the firing particularly heavy-handed given that it was a “one-off” incident and that Herbert had “no history in this case of insolence or offensive comments.”
“In essence, the conduct when considered in context was not so serious as to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract,” Boyes declared.
The judge subsequently ordered the Main Group services to pay Herbert over $20,000 in compensation and fork over an additional $19,000 to help cover her legal expenses.
In 2020, a New Jersey company was ordered to reinstate a white employee who had reportedly dropped an F-bomb and the N-word during a Zoom call, HR Morning reported.
The employee alleged that he had reportedly been signing along to a rap song, thinking he was on mute, only to be informed that that was not the case.
After said worker was sacked, the union challenged the employee’s dismissal, and following lengthy legal deliberations, the company had to grant him his old gig back.
Ultimately, the court ruled that said employee’s “one-time utterance of the term” was not directed at anyone specific and occurred when the employee accidentally believed he was muted.
Therefore, it “was precisely ‘the sort of offhanded comment and isolated incident’ that falls short of harassment,” they declared.
Read the full article here