Search
Close this search box.

Senior manager’s lack of action was serious negligence amounting to gross misconduct

The Court of Appeal hold that a senior manager’s failure to prevent Sainsbury’s staff engagement programme being undermined was serious negligence amounting to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.

In Adesokan v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Adesokan (A) was a Regional Operations Manager with 26 years’ service, responsible for 20 stores. Sainsbury’s operate a Talkback Procedure (TP) designed to ensure that staff are engaged, motivated, and take pride in their work. The HR Partner for A’s region, Briner (B), sent out an email to five store managers containing advice which offended the philosophy of TP and risked compromising the results. A asked B to clarify what he meant, but took no action to remedy the problem.

When Sainsbury’s CEO found out about the situation he requested that an investigation be launched. This lead to a disciplinary hearing. It was accepted that A was not complicit with B. However, A was accountable for the TP on his region, he was aware that B had communicated to stores in a way that deliberately set out to manipulate the TP scores and had failed to take any adequate steps to rectify this serious situation. This demonstrated gross negligence which was tantamount to gross misconduct and A was summarily dismissed.

A claimed wrongful dismissal, arguing that his actions, or more accurately his lack of action, did not amount to gross misconduct so as to justify summary dismissal. The High Court, however, held that A’s failure to take active steps to remedy the situation did amount to gross misconduct. A knew that the advice in the email was a breach of a core part of Sainsbury’s operating process and philosophy and it had the potential to affect the integrity of the results. A appealed arguing that his conduct was not capable, as a matter of law, of amounting to gross misconduct. The neglect was not so shockingly bad as to warrant the label “gross”.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. A was responsible for ensuring the successful implementation of the TP in his region. Once it became known to him that the integrity of the process was being undermined, it was his duty to ensure that this was remedied. Merely requiring B to clarify the situation, was not enough. Given the significance placed by Sainsbury’s on the TP, the High Court was entitled to find A’s inaction was a serious dereliction of his duty, which constituted gross misconduct as it had the effect of undermining the trust and confidence in the employment relationship.

The aim of this update is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for further details.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Will we meet Zero carbon emissions? It’s up to each and every business

17 June 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

The Compliance and HR Administrator position involves assisting with the implementation of compliance programs and HR procedures, maintaining accurate records,… £22,000 – £24,000 a yearFrom

London School of Economics and Political Science – Human Resources DivisionSalary: £29,935 to £33,104 per annum inclusive with potential to progress to £35,441 pa inclusive

Durham University – HR & ODSalary: £23,144 to £24,533 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal

University of Cambridge – Case Management Team HR DivisionSalary: £40,521 to £54,395 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE