DWP official sacked for trying to find someone a job

BAILI reports that Lord Justice Aikens and colleagues of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), have found against DWP in a case of unfair dismissal for an employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employee in question, Mrs Graham, had worked for DWP for nearly 30 years prior to her summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 6 March 2009. Latterly she had worked in the Jobcentre at Brunswick House, Birkenhead, as a Advisory Service Manager. Mrs Graham managed 15 members of staff. It is acknowledged that she was a very experienced officer and had been, up to the incidents which led to her dismissal, scrupulous, conscientious and of exemplary behaviour.

Mrs Graham’s daughter had a friend identified as “Jess”. In 2008, Jess telephoned Mrs Graham’s daughter and asked her if the Jobcentre could help a friend of Jess’s, called Sam Moss, to find a job. Mr Moss was, at the time, a young man of 19. Mr Moss’s story was a sad one; his mother had died of cancer, his father was an alcoholic and abusive, and Mr Moss had no other family to help him. He found it impossible to survive on benefits and he needed to find a job. During a period from about 10 January 2008 until about mid-February 2008 Mrs Graham did help Mr Moss, who, in this context, was described as a “benefit customer”.

Three DWP employees in the Jobcentre thought that this activity of Mrs Graham was irregular and in breach of the DWP’s Standards of Behaviour Policy. Three anonymous letters were sent to the local DWP management. This resulted in an investigation of the matter, and the outcome of this investigation held that the penalty was to be dismissal without notice with effect from 6 March 2009.

Mrs Graham appealed to an Employment Tribunal (ET), who found that “No reasonable employer in these circumstances would have dismissed this claimant and consequently we find the dismissal unfair and the claimant must have her remedy”. DWP subsequently appealed to an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), who found that the ET’s decision could not stand. The EAT held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, “dismissal ….plainly and unarguably fell within the range of reasonable responses [to the conclusion that there had been misconduct by the employee], so that the claim must be dismissed; there was no need to remit the matter to the ET.”

Lord Justice Aitkens, in his discussion and conclusions, finds “that the EAT was guilty of retrying the case on the facts and making its own assessment of matters in place of those made by the ET. To my mind that fatally undermines the EAT’s conclusion that the action of the DWP in summarily dismissing Mrs Graham was within the reasonable bounds of action by the objective standard of the hypothetical reasonable employer.”

In closing, LJ Aitkens goes onto say “With respect, I agree with the ET’s expression that Mrs Graham’s summary dismissal does not “sit well” with the decision to allow her to do similar work but at a different job centre and to permit her to have access to the computer system there. It was a point well made.

For a copy of the full decision, see Graham and The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus)

(With thanks to Patrick from ilegal and BAILI for highlighting this case)