When April Fools’ jokes become no laughing matter

A joke in the right circumstances is often what makes long-standing friendships and workplaces fun, but we all know of instances where a joke can be taken too far. Here is one such example, taken to the extreme.

Facts of the case

Mr Buchholz, a Technical Product Manager at Geze, had been with the company since 2006.He was known within the company as having the ‘mentality to play a silly joke’ and notorious for playing pranks on his colleagues.

Due to covid-19, in February 2020, a third-party contractor was instructed to undergo a routine deep clean of the office and during this, one of the cleaners found a small, clear plastic bag containing a white powder. She also found two lines of the powder on his desk along with a ‘straw like’ object.

As she believed that the powder was an illegal substance, Ms. Hughes contacted the Operations Director, Mr Marshall, who had assured her that it was likely to be simply a joke as Mr Buchholz was likely just “playing silly sods”.

Ms. Hughes continued to clean the office and disposed of the white powder. However, Mr Marshall later retrieved this to store this in a cupboard. As a precaution, he called the police who then attended the premises, tested the powder and confirmed it to be simply sherbet powder.

When Mr Buchholz returned from his recent annual leave and attended the office, he found that he had been locked out of the company’s IT system and was asked to attend a meeting with the HR manager.

An investigation was undertaken by the company into the situation and two of Mr Buchholz’s colleagues confirmed who confirmed that the substance was sherbet and that they had all been involved in ‘banter’ when they accidently spilled it and covered themselves in white powder.

Mr Buchholz decided to go one step further by covering his desk in the powder to create a scenario in which it appeared he had been taking drugs with the knowledge that cleaners were due to attend the office that weekend.

Following the disciplinary process, in late March 2020, Mr Buchholz was dismissed from Geze, as his behaviour had the potential of damaging the company’s reputation. He appealed the decision on the basis that his dismissal was the result of a hypothetical scenario and that his actions were unintentional, however this appeal was unsuccessful.

The outcome

In defending the claim, the company asserted that Mr Buchholz had the clear intention of causing trouble with his actions and that he held contempt for the company. However, the Tribunal ultimately ruled that he was unfairly dismissed on three bases:

• there were no reasonable grounds for the conclusion that Mr Buchholz deliberately left these items on the desk for the cleaners to find
• the sanction was outside the range of reasonable responses for this conduct in these particular circumstances, and:
• there was a failure to follow a reasonable process by failing to maintain a separation between in the Investigating and Disciplining Manager.

Despite this, the Tribunal decided that Mr Buchholz’s behaviour did in fact contribute to his dismissal. Judge Connolly stated:

“It seems to me, in terms of the range of blameworthiness, that this conduct is properly categorised as foolish, insensitive, careless and un-cooperative. It would, in my view, have merited some form of warning but not the loss of his job.

“Weighing everything up, I have come to the conclusion that a one third reduction properly reflects the nature of the conduct prior to the dismissal for the basic award and the conduct prior to and contributing to the dismissal for the compensatory.”

After reducing his award by a third, Mr Buchholz was award a total compensatory figure of £29,659.73. The full judgment and reasons can be read here.

What effect does this have on employers?

Realistically, this case is an exceptional one and is extremely unusual in its circumstances. The take away for employers is that, when undergoing disciplinary proceedings with an employee, it is extremely important to consider the reasonableness of the outcome; importantly, whether dismissal is a reasonable step or whether a smaller sanction, such as a final warning, may be a more appropriate action.

The case also highlights the importance of ensuring a full and proper disciplinary process is completed.

Further information

Unfair Dismissal – Oakwood Solicitors Ltd Podcast

Unfair Dismissal – Oakwood Solicitors Ltd (FAQ)

WHAT TO DO NEXT

If you require advice on how to conduct a full and proper disciplinary process as an employer, or you feel as an employee you have been subject to an unlawful disciplinary process, contact Oakwood Solicitors on 0113 200 9720, and we will be able to advise you.