PA loses ‘wrongful dismissal’ claim in work-from-home dispute

(32929310)

A FORMER personal assistant for a law firm has lost her claim for wrongful dismissal, following a dispute with her employer related to working from home.

Deena Jackson brought the claim after being dismissed by Sinels Advocates for gross misconduct when she chose to work from home in July 2021 against the company’s wishes.

An employment tribunal heard that both Ms Jackson and Philip Sinel, senior partner with the company, had worked from home for extended periods after the initial wave of Covid-19 and lockdown, beginning in March 2020.

Panel chair Dr Elena Moran was told that in June 2021 Mr Sinel and Ms Jackson resumed working in the office, although Ms Jackson had also requested, by email, a discussion about her ‘home/office working ratio’.

She listed benefits to this arrangement such as being able to complete home chores in her lunchtime, not having to commute, being home when tradesmen delivered items and it being easier to take her pets to the vet.

The tribunal heard that at a subsequent meeting, Ms Jackson advised that she intended to work from home on two days per week while spending three days in the office, but this suggestion was refused by Mr Sinel, who said that the office needed to be staffed and directed her to ‘drop the attitude’.

It was further stated that when new government guidance was published that Islanders should work from home where practicable, Ms Jackson sent an email to colleagues advising them that she would be working from home with effect from the following Monday.

The employment heard that when Ms Jackson did not come to the office the following week, there was an exchange with Mr Sinel in which he made reference to ‘a serious breach of your T’s and C’s, rectifiable by appearing forthwith, and not taking any further unilateral decisions’.

His PA countered in a return email by saying that she was following government guidance for the sake of her ‘physical and mental health’.

Following a disciplinary hearing, Ms Jackson was advised she was being dismissed with immediate effect.

She successfully applied for a job with another employer, which she started in September 2021.

Giving the panel’s judgment, Dr Moran said that she considered Mr Sinel’s request for Ms Jackson to work in the office was a reasonable one and within the terms of her contract. As a result, her claim was rejected.

The panel considered a further allegation, admitted by the employer, that it had been late in issuing Ms Jackson’s contract after she began the role in 2017. As a result of this breach, Ms Jackson was awarded one week’s gross pay to the value of £973.

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –