It's okay to work from home to supervise gardeners, tribunal says

Yahoo

6 days ago

Employees should not be disciplined for working from home to supervise gardeners, a tribunal has ruled.
While trying to hold an important meeting remotely so workers can supervise tradesmen might be a 'mistake', it is not necessarily 'blameworthy' conduct, the panel said.
The ruling came in the case of an IT company director who argued with his boss after asking to move a planning meeting to the online app Teams because he was having 'work done' in his garden.
Ben Wicken had been scheduled to meet Christophe Boudet, the founder of his company Akita Systems, in person to try to resolve a work disagreement, the employment tribunal heard.
But he asked to hold it on Teams because he needed to work from home for the rest of the week.
Mr Boudet told the tribunal he was 'very disappointed' by this because it made it seem as if Mr Wicken, the company's technical director, was not taking the process seriously.
Shortly afterwards, his co-directors announced that they had 'lost trust and confidence' in Mr Wicken, leading to his eventual resignation.
Mr Wicken is now set for a payout after winning his case against Akita Systems for constructive unfair dismissal.
The tribunal, in Croydon, south London, heard Mr Wicken began working at the company in March 2014 as a junior network manager and later became technical director.
In March 2022, he argued with Mr Boudet about holiday cover and the pair entered a mediation process.
However, when a meeting was scheduled on May 3 2022, Mr Wicken rang to ask if it could be moved to Teams 'as he needed to work from home for the rest of the week because he had work being done in the garden and so he would need to be there', the tribunal said in its findings.
'The tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Boudet that he was very disappointed about this and told [Mr Wicken] that it appeared he was not taking the process seriously. [He] did then attend the office,' the ruling went on.
'After lengthy discussion [he] conceded that in hindsight he should have communicated better with Mr Boudet and he should have attended the office for the 1:1 meeting.'
The tribunal heard that Mr Wicken felt 'attacked' during the meeting and broke down in tears following an 'off the record' discussion with his boss afterwards.
Subsequently, Mr Wicken agreed to draft an 'improvement plan' for his relationship with the founder.
However, it was considered that his plan did not address the key issues around his capacity as a technical director, and Mr Wicken was told the directors of the company had a 'unanimous view' that they had lost trust and confidence in him.
Two days later, Mr Wicken submitted a grievance, claiming that Akita had 'unambiguously announced' its intention to dismiss him before any process had been followed.
David Charity, an external HR consultant, was appointed to investigate but he was also a longstanding friend of Mr Boudet. Mr Wicken said instructing him was therefore 'unfair and pointless'.
A lengthy process then followed between Mr Wicken's solicitors and Mr Charity. Eventually, Mr Charity unilaterally closed Mr Wicken's grievance because he had failed to 'actively pursue' it.
This was the 'last straw' for Mr Wicken, who had been off sick for two months, and he chose to resign on June 28 instead of returning to Akita.
He listed the reasons for his resignation as conduct towards him since February, a 'sham' performance improvement plan, and the appointment of Mr Charity to investigate his grievance.
The tribunal found Mr Wicken's treatment did lead to his constructive unfair dismissal.
Lisa Burge, the employment judge, said that although Mr Wicken acknowledged prioritising his gardener over the one- to-one meeting was a 'mistake', it was not 'blameworthy' on his part.
She said: 'The tribunal concludes that [Mr Wicken] did not contribute to his dismissal...
'[Akita] submits that [Mr Wicken] admitted that his decision to prioritise arrangements with his gardener over attendance at a one-to-one mediation follow-up meeting was a mistake and that he refused to cooperate with the grievance investigation.
'However, these actions, in the context of the facts found and detailed above, do not constitute 'culpable or blameworthy' conduct.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.