Section 6.1 of the ET3
1. The Respondent is a chain of estate agents, based across South London with 23
branches in total.
2. It is admitted that the Claimant was employed as an accounts executive at the
Respondent’s head office in Bromley, Kent from 6 July 2012 to 20 January 2020.
3. It is, however, denied that there were no complaints about the Claimant’s conduct
during his employment. In December 2017, the Claimant forwarded a lewd email to
the head office team, the content of which offended several of his colleagues. The
Claimant’s manager, Ms Yip, had to speak to him informally, following which the
Claimant apologised and the matter was closed. It did not proceed to a formal
disciplinary meeting or warning. Between December 2017 and January 2020, there
have been no further concerns about the Claimant’s conduct. (its important to draw
attention to the complaint. As a result of the incident the fact that the R updated the
company internet email and social media policy. Set out detail about what the new
policy includes because the R dismissed A in direct response to breach of this policy
so its important to draw ET attention to that).
4. As a result of this incident, in January 2018, the Respondent updated the company
internet, email and social media policy and sent it to all employees to read. The policy
set out the type of behaviour which was unacceptable at work when using the internet,
emails, smart phones and social networking websites. It also gave clear guidelines for
employees on what they could and could not say about the organisation on social
networking websites, including posting anything which could damage the
Respondent’s reputation. The policy made it clear that breach of the policy would
result in disciplinary action, including summary dismissal in the case of a serious
breach.
5. The Respondent admits that, following the resignation of one of the Claimant’s
colleagues in November 2019, the Claimant had to pick up most of his former
colleague’s work. However, the Respondent contends that, after the Claimant raised
his concerns with Ms Yip on 14 January 2020, she reassured him that she would
prioritise the issue with the board of directors when she next met with them on 28
January 2020. She explained that, whilst there was no budget to recruit a permanent
member of staff, she might be given budget to hire a temporary accounts executive
during the busy January to March period. She did ask the Claimant to try to get on with
his work in the meantime, but she explained she would keep him informed as soon as
she had spoken to the board.
6. On Monday 20 January 2020, My Yip received a call from one of the Respondent’s
important clients informing her that the Claimant had posted the following Facebook
status update over the weekend:
“SOOOOOOO angry, my employer MARKET RIGHT ESTATE AGENTS is making
me work yet ANOTHER weekend. It’s such a SH*T place to work – I HATE
them!!!!!!!”
The words look powerful to draw ET to that.
The client expressed his dissatisfaction on seeing such an outburst. He explained that
whilst he did get on well with the Claimant, he was now considering taking his
business elsewhere as he was concerned about the Respondent’s quality of service.
docs_512944557.docx3 1/5 © City, University of London 2019
, 7. The Respondent admits that, following the call from the client, Ms Yip called the
Claimant into her office for a meeting. When the Claimant arrived at Ms Yip’s office,
she showed him the Facebook post and asked for an explanation. It is therefore
denied that the Claimant was not given the chance to answer the allegations against
him. The Claimant got angry; stood up and started to shout accusatorily at Ms Yip
about his recent working patterns. The Claimant did not give a suitable explanation for
his Facebook status update.
We need to clarify what happened at the meeting. It paints the full picture rather than C
skewed version of events,
8. Ms Yip found the Claimant’s behaviour aggressive, so informed him that that his
employment was being terminated for gross misconduct, citing a serious breach of the
internet, email and social media policy. The meeting lasted approximately 10 minutes.
9. The Respondent admits that the Claimant’s dismissal took effect on 20 January 2019
and that he was summarily dismissed without any notice pay. The Respondent admits
that the notice period in his employment contract was three months.
10. The Respondent contends that the Claimant’s dismissal was fair on the following
grounds:
a) the Respondent dismissed the Claimant for the fair reason of conduct, due to the
Claimant’s serious breach of the Respondent’s internet, email and social media
policy; and
b) the Respondent acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances in
dismissing the Claimant.
11. The Respondent denies that the Claimant is entitled to the compensation claimed or at
all.
Ms Yip wasn’t quite dismissive as A suggested.
We got a further detail about how he acted in that meeting as well as information about the
fact that Ms Yip had told him that she would raise his concerns with the board on a particular
date. There are some arguments that its fair and reasonable in those circumstances. Its
probably not going to fall within band of reasonable responses. But because of those
circumstances that adds weight to their arguments.
When we are putting together the ET3 we are directly responding to ET1. ET3 is the R’s
response to the ET1.
R is going to deny that
there are no complaints
about the claimants
behaviour because from
what Amanda told us that
there was a lude email
that he had forwarded and
it offended several of his
colleagues. So we should
draw attention to that. Also
draw attention to the fact
that company’s internet
docs_512944557.docx3 2/5 © City, University of London 2019
1. The Respondent is a chain of estate agents, based across South London with 23
branches in total.
2. It is admitted that the Claimant was employed as an accounts executive at the
Respondent’s head office in Bromley, Kent from 6 July 2012 to 20 January 2020.
3. It is, however, denied that there were no complaints about the Claimant’s conduct
during his employment. In December 2017, the Claimant forwarded a lewd email to
the head office team, the content of which offended several of his colleagues. The
Claimant’s manager, Ms Yip, had to speak to him informally, following which the
Claimant apologised and the matter was closed. It did not proceed to a formal
disciplinary meeting or warning. Between December 2017 and January 2020, there
have been no further concerns about the Claimant’s conduct. (its important to draw
attention to the complaint. As a result of the incident the fact that the R updated the
company internet email and social media policy. Set out detail about what the new
policy includes because the R dismissed A in direct response to breach of this policy
so its important to draw ET attention to that).
4. As a result of this incident, in January 2018, the Respondent updated the company
internet, email and social media policy and sent it to all employees to read. The policy
set out the type of behaviour which was unacceptable at work when using the internet,
emails, smart phones and social networking websites. It also gave clear guidelines for
employees on what they could and could not say about the organisation on social
networking websites, including posting anything which could damage the
Respondent’s reputation. The policy made it clear that breach of the policy would
result in disciplinary action, including summary dismissal in the case of a serious
breach.
5. The Respondent admits that, following the resignation of one of the Claimant’s
colleagues in November 2019, the Claimant had to pick up most of his former
colleague’s work. However, the Respondent contends that, after the Claimant raised
his concerns with Ms Yip on 14 January 2020, she reassured him that she would
prioritise the issue with the board of directors when she next met with them on 28
January 2020. She explained that, whilst there was no budget to recruit a permanent
member of staff, she might be given budget to hire a temporary accounts executive
during the busy January to March period. She did ask the Claimant to try to get on with
his work in the meantime, but she explained she would keep him informed as soon as
she had spoken to the board.
6. On Monday 20 January 2020, My Yip received a call from one of the Respondent’s
important clients informing her that the Claimant had posted the following Facebook
status update over the weekend:
“SOOOOOOO angry, my employer MARKET RIGHT ESTATE AGENTS is making
me work yet ANOTHER weekend. It’s such a SH*T place to work – I HATE
them!!!!!!!”
The words look powerful to draw ET to that.
The client expressed his dissatisfaction on seeing such an outburst. He explained that
whilst he did get on well with the Claimant, he was now considering taking his
business elsewhere as he was concerned about the Respondent’s quality of service.
docs_512944557.docx3 1/5 © City, University of London 2019
, 7. The Respondent admits that, following the call from the client, Ms Yip called the
Claimant into her office for a meeting. When the Claimant arrived at Ms Yip’s office,
she showed him the Facebook post and asked for an explanation. It is therefore
denied that the Claimant was not given the chance to answer the allegations against
him. The Claimant got angry; stood up and started to shout accusatorily at Ms Yip
about his recent working patterns. The Claimant did not give a suitable explanation for
his Facebook status update.
We need to clarify what happened at the meeting. It paints the full picture rather than C
skewed version of events,
8. Ms Yip found the Claimant’s behaviour aggressive, so informed him that that his
employment was being terminated for gross misconduct, citing a serious breach of the
internet, email and social media policy. The meeting lasted approximately 10 minutes.
9. The Respondent admits that the Claimant’s dismissal took effect on 20 January 2019
and that he was summarily dismissed without any notice pay. The Respondent admits
that the notice period in his employment contract was three months.
10. The Respondent contends that the Claimant’s dismissal was fair on the following
grounds:
a) the Respondent dismissed the Claimant for the fair reason of conduct, due to the
Claimant’s serious breach of the Respondent’s internet, email and social media
policy; and
b) the Respondent acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances in
dismissing the Claimant.
11. The Respondent denies that the Claimant is entitled to the compensation claimed or at
all.
Ms Yip wasn’t quite dismissive as A suggested.
We got a further detail about how he acted in that meeting as well as information about the
fact that Ms Yip had told him that she would raise his concerns with the board on a particular
date. There are some arguments that its fair and reasonable in those circumstances. Its
probably not going to fall within band of reasonable responses. But because of those
circumstances that adds weight to their arguments.
When we are putting together the ET3 we are directly responding to ET1. ET3 is the R’s
response to the ET1.
R is going to deny that
there are no complaints
about the claimants
behaviour because from
what Amanda told us that
there was a lude email
that he had forwarded and
it offended several of his
colleagues. So we should
draw attention to that. Also
draw attention to the fact
that company’s internet
docs_512944557.docx3 2/5 © City, University of London 2019
