A disciplinary process worthy of criticism

There is a version of an old saying that goes, “sticks and stones may break my bones…” but words can never hurt me – yet the words in an online review can still pose a real threat to an employee’s career.

Restaurant worker Sasha was accused by a disgruntled female diner of being verbally abusive, having a bad attitude, behaving unprofessionally and providing terrible service.

The complaint was first made via email to her manager at the restaurant, where she had worked for three years.

Unhappy with the business’s response, the customer then posted a scathing online review, and it came at a particularly difficult time for Sasha.

It was when she was suspended from work following an argument with a colleague in front of customers.

That subsequent disciplinary investigation cleared Sasha of any wrongdoing.

However, she was then informed she would remain on suspension because of the online review.

Worried, Sasha contacted our Employee Support Centre for advice and assistance after she was invited to a formal disciplinary hearing.

The allegations levelled against her were poor customer service and bringing the restaurant into disrepute. Sasha denied the allegations.

Sasha was put in touch with one of our trade union representatives, who discussed and reviewed the case and evidence with her.

The evidence was what was said to be an investigation report, which referred to the customer’s original complaint sent to the manager via email, along with a copy of the online review.

Our trade union representative believed the response to the initial complaint was important, as no action was taken against Sasha and she was never informed of it.

He requested all evidence of email communication regarding the complaint, pointing out it was referred to in the investigation report so it is evidence that should be provided in line with the ACAS Code of Practice.

The employer initially refused, insisting it was not relevant. Our trade union representatives are not easily deterred when in pursuit of any evidence that may assist an employee’s case.

He persisted and, during an exchange of email correspondence, maintained that the evidence was relevant, should be provided, and that Sasha had a right to see it.

The requested information was eventually provided. It included the customer’s complaint email and a response from the manager, who apologised and assured the customer that, having investigated the matter, the employee in question had been dealt with.

Subsequent emails from the customer demanding details about what had been done went unanswered, leaving her threatening to post a negative online review if she did not receive a response. No reply was ever sent.

At the disciplinary hearing, our trade union representative responded to the allegations on Sasha’s behalf, arguing it would be unfair to take any formal disciplinary action against her based on the evidence.

He told the hearing the evidence showed the company was at fault because it failed to properly deal with the original email complaint, which ultimately led to the customer posting the online review.

The hearing was told the matter had apparently been “dealt with” and therefore resolved, and that it had not been considered serious enough to warrant disciplinary action at the time. It was added that if the complaint had been serious, the employer would have investigated immediately and spoken to Sasha.

Our trade union representative firmly argued that the evidence suggested the restaurant was acting out of concern for its reputation and was attempting to make Sasha a scapegoat. He added the online review had been posted out of frustration with management, not because of Sasha’s conduct.

He also stated there was no independent or credible evidence to support the complaint against Sasha, making it unfair and illogical to uphold any allegation in such circumstances.

Sasha’s work record, positive feedback, and lack of similar complaints were highlighted. Our representative dismissed the claim that she had brought the restaurant into disrepute, emphasising that it was the employer’s failure to respond to the customer, not Sasha’s actions, that led to the negative review.

She was relieved to later be cleared of the allegations.