22-year accounts manager dismissed for failing to open 2,000 emails: dismissal upheld
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an accounts manager with 22 years' service who failed to open nearly 2,000 work emails and set up two-step verification blocking her boss's access. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #failure-to-open-emails
- #two-step-verification
- #insubordination
- #covid-19-instructions
- #small-employer
- #independent-disciplinary-hearing
- #appeal-by-same-manager
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an accounts manager from 1 June 1999 until dismissal on 10 December 2021.
- The claimant failed to open almost 2,000 work emails between March and May 2021 while working from home.
- The claimant set up two-step verification on her work email, preventing the managing director from accessing it remotely.
- The claimant attempted to enter the office on 6 February 2021 after being instructed not to due to Covid-19 restrictions.
- An independent HR consultant recommended a final written warning, but the managing director decided to dismiss for gross misconduct.
- The appeal was heard by the same managing director as no other impartial manager was available.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an office administrator, later becoming accounts manager.
-
Office incident
An argument occurred between the claimant and Mrs Datson after the claimant refused to have her emails diverted.
-
Attempted office entry
Claimant sent a WhatsApp message indicating she and a colleague would go into the office, despite Mr Datson's instruction not to.
-
Emails not opened
Between March and May 2021, the claimant failed to open almost 2,000 enquiry emails from Rightmove and Zoopla.
-
Letter about return to work
Mr Datson sent a letter about returning to work and expressed disappointment about holiday booking without permission.
-
Full furlough
Claimant and two other employees were put back on full furlough due to rising Covid-19 cases.
-
Return to work meeting
Claimant attended the meeting with a colleague despite being instructed to attend individually.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into her conduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
An independent HR consultant, Mr Gill, conducted a disciplinary hearing with the claimant.
-
Dismissal
Mr Datson dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct with immediate effect.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Datson heard the appeal and upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, focusing on whether the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was a reasonable sanction.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, ruling that the employer acted fairly.
Key reasons:
- The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on the evidence, including the claimant's failure to open nearly 2,000 emails and her refusal to cooperate with management.
- The investigation was reasonable given the small size of the business.
- Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, particularly given the breakdown of trust and confidence.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically protect against dismissal for serious misconduct, especially if trust and confidence are broken.
- Small employers may be given more leeway by tribunals in terms of investigation and procedure, but must still act reasonably.
- Failing to open work emails and blocking management access can be treated as gross misconduct, even for a long-serving employee.
- Having the same manager hear an appeal is not necessarily unfair if no other impartial manager is available in a small business.
A breakdown of trust after 22 years
This case shows how a series of workplace conflicts can escalate into a dismissal that a tribunal considers fair, even for a long-serving employee. The accounts manager had worked for the letting agency for over two decades, but a combination of factors — including a failure to open nearly 2,000 emails from property portals, setting up two-step verification that blocked her boss's access, and an attempt to enter the office during Covid restrictions — led to a complete breakdown of trust.
The employer, a small family-run business, had limited management resources. The managing director conducted the investigation and appeal himself because no other impartial manager was available. The tribunal accepted this as reasonable in the circumstances, noting that the independent HR consultant who chaired the disciplinary hearing had recommended a final written warning, but the managing director was entitled to decide on dismissal as the ultimate decision-maker.
What the employer did right
The employer followed a formal disciplinary process, including suspension, a hearing with an independent chair, and an appeal — even though the appeal was heard by the same manager. The tribunal found that the investigation was reasonable for a small business, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The key failures by the employee — ignoring emails, blocking access, and insubordination — were serious enough to justify dismissal.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will consider the size and resources of the employer when assessing fairness. Small businesses are not expected to have the same formal procedures as large corporations, but they must still act reasonably. For employees, long service is not a guarantee of protection if trust and confidence are destroyed by misconduct. The outcome also highlights that an employee representing themselves (as the claimant did here) may struggle to challenge the employer's evidence effectively.
Similar cases
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.