Dismissed for call avoidance: when closing complaints without calling customers is gross misconduct

What this case shows

This case demonstrates that employers can fairly dismiss for what might seem like a performance issue if it is treated as misconduct. The claimant, a Complaints Resolution Manager with six years' service, was told in May 2021 that all customers must be called before closing complaints. Over the next month, she closed 81 complaints but made only 15 outbound calls. An investigation reviewed 34 of those complaints and found 15 required additional work. The disciplinary officer found call avoidance, work avoidance, and unacceptable behaviour. On appeal, the unacceptable behaviour finding was revoked, but the dismissal was upheld based on the other two grounds.

What could have been done differently

The claimant argued that the real reason for dismissal was to avoid a redundancy payment, but the tribunal rejected this. The employer could have considered a final written warning instead of dismissal, but the tribunal found that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the clear expectations and the extent of the non-compliance. The claimant might have avoided dismissal by ensuring she made the required calls or by raising any concerns about the expectations at the time.

Why this matters

This case confirms that call avoidance can be gross misconduct, even for a long-serving employee. The key is that the employer sets clear expectations, carries out a reasonable investigation, and follows a fair procedure. The fact that one allegation was overturned on appeal did not make the overall dismissal unfair. For employees, it highlights the importance of adhering to clear performance expectations, especially when they are explicitly communicated.