Avoiding serious career harm after accident at work

Customer complaints can be a nightmare for staff because employers can sometimes overreact, as Theo discovered.

The old saying that “the customer is always right” can certainly be considered contentious.

However, it appeared to be the viewpoint adopted when fast‑food worker Theo faced disciplinary action.

He was carrying a tray of food and drinks to a table when a male customer - walking toward the till to place an order and reportedly looking down while using his mobile phone - bumped into him, causing him to drop the tray.

The drinks hit the floor and splashed onto the customer’s trousers, prompting the customer to react furiously, shouting and swearing at an apologetic Theo.

When Theo contacted our Employee Support Centre for advice and support, he spoke to one of our trade union representatives, who reassured him that accidents can happen and are not always considered misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

The main issue in the case, however, and the reason Theo had been invited to a disciplinary hearing, was the customer’s allegation Theo was aggressive and threatening and had in fact sworn at and insulted him when he tried to apologise.

An aggravating factor was a colleague’s witness statement claiming that, when Theo went to the changing room after the incident, he made a derogatory comment about the customer, using crude and outdated terms to suggest they were overweight and did not have a father.

Theo, who had nine years’ service and an exemplary disciplinary record, admitted making the comment to his workmate, but remained adamant that he did not insult the customer directly or act aggressively or in a threatening manner.

The day after the incident, Theo was summoned to his supervisor’s office and quizzed about what had happened.

He explained that he had been carrying the tray, saw the customer approaching while looking down at his phone, stepped aside to avoid him, but the customer walked into him, blamed him, and reacted in a rude, insulting and aggressive manner.

The supervisor informed him that a complaint had been made and stated that it was clear the incident was Theo’s fault and that he had been rude and aggressive toward the customer.

Theo was then suspended from work and later invited to a fact‑finding meeting as part of the disciplinary investigation process.

During the meeting, Theo asked his supervisor to review CCTV footage. He was assured this would happen. However, when he was later invited to the disciplinary hearing, no CCTV evidence was provided or referenced, prompting him to seek our support.

The allegation against him was inappropriate and unprofessional conduct toward a customer. He was warned if proven it could amount to gross misconduct and lead to dismissal.

When disciplinary allegations are serious, the ACAS Code of Practice advises employers to conduct a thorough and fair investigation with an open mind and to look for evidence that does support the allegation and also the employee.

Despite this, the only evidence disclosed was the customer’s complaint and a colleague’s witness statement.

Theo exercised his statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing, and our trade union representative presented his case.

He explained that Theo did not swear at the customer, that the customer walked into him while distracted, and that Theo apologised despite being shouted at. Adding the point that with no independent evidence, it was simply Theo’s word against the customer’s, and legal precedent suggests he should receive the benefit of the doubt.

Our representative argued that the failure to provide the requested CCTV was a serious flaw in the investigation. He said the footage would have shown the customer’s behaviour, the collision, and Theo’s response.

He told the hearing that while Theo admitted making a private comment to a colleague, it was not directed at the customer, and there was simply no evidence to support that he was aggressive, threatening, inappropriate and unprofessional.

His nine years of exemplary service were highlighted, along with the fact that accidents happen and the allegation was not supported by any tangible, credible and reliable evidence.

Theo was later cleared of the allegation, his suspension lifted and he returned to work.