Dismissed for poor customer call: procedural failures made it unfair
A Customer Service Adviser with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a single rude call. The tribunal found procedural failings but reduced compensation by 40% for her conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #chronic-pain
- #medication-side-effects
- #coaching-culture
- #attendance-management
- #performance-improvement-plan
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Customer Service Adviser from 22 September 2008 until summary dismissal on 18 March 2020.
- The claimant has chronic pain syndrome, right arm impairment, anxiety and depression, accepted as disabilities.
- On 13 December 2019, the claimant handled a customer call poorly, being rude and condescending, and terminated the call without escalation.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct based on the call and alleged refusal to follow management instructions.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural failings, including unclear allegations and failure to obtain an occupational health report.
- The claimant's conduct contributed 40% to her dismissal, reducing the basic and compensatory awards.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began work as a Customer Service Adviser at Student Loans Company.
-
First OH report
Occupational Health report noted claimant's chronic pain and medication side effects.
-
Second OH report
OH report recommended micro breaks and adjusted targets.
-
Incident call
Claimant handled a customer call poorly, being rude and condescending, and terminated the call.
-
Coaching session
Claimant refused to listen to the call with Chantelle Currah but accepted desktop coaching.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation into abusive behaviour and refusal to follow instruction.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct allegations.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard by Chelsea Hurman; outcome upheld on 12 May 2020.
-
Final hearing start
Substantive hearing of the claims began at Newcastle Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair and whether the employer discriminated by failing to make reasonable adjustments or by dismissing for something arising from disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The employer did not clearly explain the allegations, failed to get an occupational health report despite the claimant's known disabilities, and did not consider alternatives to dismissal. However, the claimant's own conduct—being rude to a customer and refusing to listen to the call recording—contributed 40% to her dismissal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,538.16
- Compensatory award: £18,584.28
- Total: £22,122.44 (reduced by 40% for contributory fault)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure allegations are clearly communicated in writing before a disciplinary hearing.
- Where an employee has known disabilities, obtaining an up-to-date occupational health report is crucial before dismissing.
- A single incident of poor conduct, without considering the employee's long service and health, may not justify summary dismissal.
- Employees who contribute to their own dismissal through misconduct can expect compensation to be significantly reduced.
This case shows how a single mistake—a poorly handled customer call—can lead to dismissal, but also how procedural shortcuts can make that dismissal unfair. The claimant, a Customer Service Adviser with 11 years' service, suffered from chronic pain and anxiety. On one call she was rude and terminated it without escalation. The employer dismissed her for gross misconduct.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the employer failed to give the claimant clear written allegations before the hearing. It also did not obtain an occupational health report, even though the claimant's disabilities were well known and she had asked for one. The dismissing manager relied on a six-month-old report, ignoring the possibility that the claimant's medication side effects might have affected her behaviour.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have paused the process to get an up-to-date medical opinion. It could also have considered alternatives to dismissal, such as a final written warning, especially given the claimant's long service and previously good record. The claimant herself could have cooperated more fully with the investigation, but the tribunal noted her conduct contributed 40% to the outcome.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that even a fair dismissal can be overturned if the process is flawed. For employers, it underscores the importance of following proper procedure—especially when dealing with disabled employees. Failing to obtain medical evidence or to clearly set out allegations can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an expensive mistake.
Similar cases
Senior auditor dismissed after taking time off to care for ill father: automatic unfair dismissal claim rejected
A tribunal has ruled that a senior internal auditor with one year's service was not automatically unfairly dismissed for taking time off to care for his seriously ill father. The claim was dismissed.
Capability dismissal upheld after employee disengaged during long-term sickness
A customer service adviser with functional neurological disorder lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer's process was fair and the dismissal justified.
Business analyst dismissed after 16 months of sick leave: capability dismissal upheld
A tribunal has ruled that Bud Systems Limited fairly dismissed a business analyst who had been on sick leave for 16 months with anxiety and depression. All discrimination claims also failed.
Long-term sickness dismissal: employer's decision upheld despite lack of updated medical evidence
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a long-term sick employee by Plusnet Plc, finding the employer acted reasonably in concluding there was no prospect of a return to work.