An admin worker who was fired after accidentally calling a customer ‘a t***’ in an email has won more than £5,000 in an unfair dismissal claim.
Meliesha Jones accidentally hit ‘reply’ to an email instead of ‘forward’, an employment tribunal heard.
The 31-year-old had been trying to organise for a colleague at the curtain company where she worked to re-arrange a customer visit when she messaged to say ‘he’s a t*** so it doesn’t matter if you can’t’.
Ms Jones was left mortified when the customer’s wife then rang the office, querying why she had been offensive about her husband.
Despite offering to pay the customers £500 herself to resolve the complaint, she was eventually sacked by bosses as the couple threatened to leave bad reviews of the business on Trustpilot.
However, Ms Jones has now been awarded £5,484 in compensation after a judge ruled bosses had conducted a ‘sham’ investigation and that her sacking had been ‘unfair’
The hearing in Reading, Berkshire, was told Ms Jones worked for small family company, Vale Curtains and Blinds, as a part-time admin worker from May 2021 until she was sacked for gross misconduct.
In June 2023, a customer who had made ‘repeated complaints’ emailed about his order and had tried to get a full refund of the cost of his curtains.
It was heard Ms Jones felt the customer had previously been ‘rude’ to her on the phone.
Having asked to change the time of his upcoming appointment, she had intended to forward the email to installation manager Karl Gibbons with a comment, which said: ‘Hi Karl – Can you change this… he’s a t*** so it doesn’t matter if you can’t’.
However, instead of clicking ‘forward’, she accidentally clicked ‘reply’, so the email was sent to the customer.
Shortly afterwards, the wife of the customer rang the office and upon learning it was Ms Jones who had answered, asked: ‘Is there any reason why you called my husband a t***?’
The hearing was told Ms Jones was ‘shocked and upset’ to realise her mistake and ushered her colleague over as she put the caller on speaker.
She apologised ‘profusely’ but the customer’s wife asked to speak to Ms Jones’ manager, who was not in.
After her boss Jacqueline Smith arrived and apologised again for her conduct, the customer’s wife asked how she was going to be compensated, resulting in her being told she couldn’t have her curtains for free.
When she threatened to go to the press and social media, Ms Smith said she’d investigate and get back to her.
This prompted Ms Jones to offer to pay the customer £500 out of her own pocket ‘as a gesture of goodwill’.
However, when the customer contacted the owner directly, with further threats to publicise the incident and leave a bad review on Trustpilot, it was heard bosses decided to ‘get rid of’ Ms Jones.
When she arrived at work Ms Smith, who was crying, handed her an invitation to a disciplinary meeting.
Ms Jones continued to work, but was ‘very upset and angry’, it was heard.
At her disciplinary hearing the following Monday, she was dismissed and an email was later sent to the customer’s wife informing her of the outcome ‘following the disgraceful email that was sent to your husband in error’.
Ms Jones appealed against her dismissal on 14 grounds, which was denied.
In July 2023 she was sent her letter of dismissal which stated the reason as ‘formal company email to a customer using derogatory terminology’.
It added: ‘This is a particularly serious issue for our business because we are a small company and largely rely on word of mouth for repeat business.
‘Bad publicity could ruin the company if the customer decides to take the matter further.’
Employment Judge Akua Reindorf KC said: ‘I conclude from the evidence before me that the principal reason for his decision was that the customer and his wife had made threats to publicise [Ms Jones’] email in the press, social media and/or Trustpilot.
‘I therefore conclude that the principal reason for her dismissal was not a reason related to conduct… as such it was a potentially fair reason.’
The judge found the company ‘did not act fairly in the circumstances of the case in treating it as sufficient reason to dismiss her’.
‘The disciplinary process and the dismissal were a sham designed to placate the customer,’ she added.
‘I find that they acted unreasonably,’ she continued.
‘[Ms Jones] dismissal was unfair.
‘The mistaken addressee was a genuine error, and one which is often made.’
Ms Jones was awarded loss of earnings in the period, which eventually totalled £5,484.74.