Teggart vs TeleTech UK Ltd

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 704/11

CLAIMANT: Daniel Joseph Teggart

RESPONDENT: TeleTech UK Limited

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and his claim is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mr B Greene

Members: Mr S Pyper

Mr R Hanna

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Miss M McGinley of EEF Northern Ireland.

Sources of Evidence

1. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and on behalf of the respondent from Mr G Riddiough, Ms Williamson and Ms K Mellon. The tribunal also received two bundles of documents amounting to 410 pages, an agreed chronology and two written submissions of 66 pages.

The Claim and Defence

2. The claimant claimed unfair dismissal. The respondent denied that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent asserted that the claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct.

The Issues

3. The issues to be determined by the tribunal were:-

(1) Did the claimant suffer a breach of his rights under Articles 8, 9, or 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998?

(2) Was the claimant unfairly dismissed by the respondent?

(3) If the dismissal was unfair what is the appropriate remedy?

Findings of Fact

4. (1) The respondent employed the claimant from 11 July 2007 until 26 January 2011 as a customer service representative.

(2) The respondent is a UK subsidiary of TeleTech Inc a leading global service provider of strategic customer management solutions. Its operation in Belfast primarily involves the function of a call centre for a number of key clients. It employs almost 800 people at its Belfast operation.

(3) The claimant had a profile on Facebook and posted messages and comments on Facebook from time to time. The claimant’s Facebook friends included a number of fellow employees of the respondent and also a number of persons who were not employees of the respondent.

(4) From the claimant’s home, on his own computer and in his own time, on
19 December 2010 the claimant posted a message on his Facebook page which stated,

“quick question who in Teletech has A not tried to fuck? She does get around!”

A number of other persons added comments to the claimant’s Facebook page, further discussing or debating the topic raised by the claimant.

(5) A was known to the claimant as a work colleague but was not a friend.

(6) It appears A did not see the Facebook page initially. She was excluded from it. However she was told about it by a work colleague, Corey Breen and it may have been shown to her.

(7) On 20 December 2010 A spoke to the claimant’s then girlfriend to ask him to remove the page.

(8) A series of emails then ensued between a person called Mark Spence and the respondent. From the email of 27 December 2010 it is clear that Mark Spence knew the claimant and A, who were both based in the Belfast office. He stated that the comments were in breach of company policy but finished the statement with a question mark. He referred to the screen shot on which he had seen the comments and set out an address.

(9) The tribunal is satisfied that Mark Spence had attached a copy of the comments to his original email although this only became clear following further research on emails provided to the respondent. It seems an attachment only appears on the first and final emails and not on intermediary emails.

(10) The respondent did not make any attempt to contact Mark Spence to obtain a statement from him or to find out how he became aware of the claimant’s Facebook page or if he had any connection with any of the employees of the respondent or how he knew two out of almost 800 employees.

It appears that Mark Spence is not and was not ever an employee of the respondent.

(11) As a result of the claimant’s girlfriends telling him of A’s request to remove the page the claimant posted another message on his Facebook page. He believed that A’s intervention with his girlfriend was an attempt to manipulate both his girlfriend and him and he was not pleased with that and posted further comments on his Facebook page.

The further comment was,

“A can go and suck donkey dick … LOL”.

Again a number of other persons made comments. The date of the second post is not clear.

(12) Corey Breen approached Gordon Riddiough, the service delivery manager, on 13 January 2011 and complained about the Facebook comments.

(13) On the same day Gordon Riddiough spoke to A who confirmed that she had been told about the comments by some of her friends who were also Facebook users. She was upset, physically distressed and tearful.
Mr Riddiough did not conduct a formal investigatory meeting with A nor did he record what she had said nor obtain a statement from her at that time.

(14) The respondent has a number of policies which are pertinent to this claim and the claimant’s dismissal.

(a) The Dignity at Work Policy states,

“It is the policy of TeleTech to provide a safe working environment, free from harassment and intimidation. …”

The policy also states:-

“Harassment and bullying are considered misconduct and if proven may result in the immediate dismissal of the offender.

Definitions of Unacceptable Behaviour

Harassment is any of the following:

• Unwanted conduct, whether verbal or not, which violates the dignity of the individual; or

• Any form of verbal or non verbal conduct, which creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment,

Harassment can take many forms, it can be visual, verbal or physical and may be prompted by an individual’s sex, race, ethnic group, religion, personal beliefs, nationality, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental ability or some other personal characteristic”.

(b) The Code of Conduct provides,

“Discrimination Harassment

We are committed to maintaining a working environment based on mutual respect. One that is free from discrimination or harassment, including intimidating, hostile, or offensive conduct. Discrimination and harassment based on ethnicity or national origin, race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, age, martial status, or other category protected by law is strictly prohibited.

Inappropriate or unwelcomed sexual behaviour is strictly prohibited. The company does not permit advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal, written, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

Harassing or discriminating conduct may occur on or off TeleTech premises and during work or non-working hours. Harassment or discrimination is prohibited whether committed by or against subordinates, managers, supervisors, co-workers, or non-employees, including vendors, clients or other customers.

A violation can occur even when the conduct does not rise to the level of unlawful discrimination or harassment. Nothing in the Code of Conduct is designed or intended to limit TeleTech’s authority to discipline or take remedial action for conduct that is, in TeleTech’s sole discretion, determined to be unacceptable. “

(c) The respondent’s Disciplinary Policy sets out examples of gross misconduct. Those applicable to this claim are;-

“13. Serious acts of Harassment and Bullying or other discrimination including, racist, sexual or other offensive remarks, gestures or actions directed at fellow employees, customer or clients.

14. Bringing the company into serious disrepute through actions taken either on or off company sites.”

(15) A forwarded the email she had received from Corey Breen to Gordon Riddiough...