Avoiding an unintended departure following bad behaviour at a leaving do

Nights out with colleagues are meant to be enjoyable, but they can sometimes threaten to ruin careers through a combination of alcohol and offensive comments.

It’s fair to say Sarah was settling into her new role as an administration team leader before she was suspended from work.

She had been in the role just seven months when her actions at a colleague’s leaving party threatened to cut short her time with the housing association.

During the event, Sarah drank more alcohol than usual. Two colleagues made negative comments about work-related interactions with her, which led to a disagreement.

When Sarah contacted our Employee Support Centre for help, she explained she had perceived the comments as personal criticism.

She admitted shouting and swearing at both colleagues. Several employees witnessed the incident.

As a result, Sarah was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing to answer allegations that she had behaved in an unprofessional, abusive and aggressive manner. She was warned dismissal was a potential outcome.

With less than two years' service, Sarah would not be able to make a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal if her contract was terminated unjustly.

Going through the case with Sarah, our trade union representative established she had autism, which could amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010.

He believed the condition could also be considered to be directly linked to her actions. The employer had been informed of Sarah’s autism at the outset of her employment.

It meant that, if Sarah was dismissed and her conduct was found to have arisen, at least in part, because of her disability, the dismissal could potentially amount to disability discrimination.

All employees are protected against all forms of unlawful discrimination regardless of their length of service.

In discussions with Sarah, our trade union representative established that she struggled in social situations, found it difficult to read social cues, and could become overwhelmed when under stress. She also had a tendency towards black-and-white thinking and impulsive reactions when she felt criticised or rejected.

He recognised that these disability-related factors could provide significant mitigation in Sarah's case

He worked closely with Sarah to gather evidence that could support an argument there was a link between her autism and the allegations.

Among the information obtained was an occupational health report provided to the employer when Sarah disclosed her autism at the start of her employment. The report contained helpful details.

Our trade union representative explained during the disciplinary hearing how autism can affect impulse control and Sarah's response to perceived criticism or rejection, such as the comments made by her colleagues during the night out.

He acknowledged Sarah's behaviour had fallen below the standards expected by her employer and explained that she was genuinely remorseful and apologetic for her actions.

Instead of denying what had happened, our trade union representative focused on the significant mitigation and disability-related factors.

He clearly explained why simply dismissing the incident as "drunken bad behaviour" would fail to take proper account of the wider circumstances and the impact of Sarah's disability.

The hearing chair was told she had to consider disability-related explanations before deciding upon any disciplinary sanction.

Our representative asserted dismissal would be unfair and disproportionate given the significant mitigation in the case.

He highlighted Sarah's previously good record, her honesty during the disciplinary investigation, her remorse, her short service without previous issues, and the available evidence linking aspects of her conduct to her disability.

Sarah made clear prior to the hearing that she had lost trust and confidence in her employer, so our trade union representative initiated a discussion about a settlement agreement. It was her preferred outcome.

An initial discussion took place at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing. Further discussions and negotiations followed before an agreement was reached that allowed Sarah to leave on terms she was delighted with.