Account manager dismissed after partner took job with competitor: unfair dismissal ruling
An account manager with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed after her partner started working for a competitor. The tribunal found the employer failed to explore alternatives like office working. She was awarded £5,174.80.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #partner-working-for-competitor
- #home-working
- #confidentiality-concerns
- #failure-to-propose-workaround
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an account manager from 10 March 2014 until dismissal on 1 October 2021.
- Her partner, James Harley, was dismissed by the respondent in June 2021 and later worked for a competitor, Woodway UK Ltd.
- The claimant was suspended on 24 September 2021 and dismissed on 1 October 2021 for alleged failure to disclose her partner's new job and failure to secure confidential information.
- The respondent did not propose that the claimant could return to working from the office as an alternative to dismissal.
- The claimant obtained alternative work within 11 days of dismissal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not explore alternatives such as working from the office.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Claimant began employment as an account manager for the respondent.
-
Claimant started working from home
Due to COVID-19, the claimant worked from home while her partner continued on site.
-
Partner dismissed
Mr Harley was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct.
-
Partner started new job
Mr Harley commenced work for Woodway UK Ltd, a competitor.
-
Colleague asked about partner
Anna Desmond asked how Mr Harley was; claimant said he had another job but did not name the employer.
-
LinkedIn profile discovered
Ms Desmond saw Mr Harley's LinkedIn showing his new role at Woodway.
-
Fred Lill messaged partner
Fred Lill left a cordial LinkedIn message for Mr Harley.
-
Fred Lill asked claimant
Fred Lill asked claimant about Mr Harley's new job; she answered truthfully.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into alleged breach of confidentiality.
-
Investigatory meeting
Louise Ricketts interviewed the claimant; claimant answered questions.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing; she provided a fit note but attended.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed; decision letter did not state the reason for dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Barry Lill; dismissal upheld.
-
Claimant found new job
Claimant obtained alternative work within 11 days of dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted fairly in dismissing the employee for 'some other substantial reason' — a perceived conflict of interest because her partner worked for a competitor — and whether a fair procedure was followed.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The employer had a genuine concern about a conflict of interest, but it did not explore whether the employee could return to working from the office, which would have addressed the risk.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,605.00
- Compensatory award: £1,569.80 (including £1,135.80 lost earnings, £34 lost pension, £400 loss of statutory rights)
- Total: £5,174.80
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a concern about a conflict of interest, consider all reasonable alternatives to dismissal — such as changing working arrangements — before deciding to dismiss.
- A fair procedure means giving the employee a chance to respond to concerns and exploring options that could resolve the issue without ending their employment.
- Length of service matters: a long-serving employee is entitled to a more thorough process before dismissal.
- If you are dismissed and find a new job quickly, your compensation for lost earnings will be reduced accordingly.
What happened
The account manager had worked for Lil Packaging Ltd for seven years when her partner was dismissed by the same company. He later took a job with a competitor. The employer became concerned about a potential conflict of interest and, after a short investigation, dismissed her for failing to disclose her partner's new role and for alleged confidentiality risks.
The tribunal found that while the employer had genuine concerns, it acted too quickly. It did not consider a simple solution: asking the employee to return to working from the office, where she had worked before the pandemic, rather than from home where she might have access to sensitive information.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have proposed a workaround before resorting to dismissal. The employee had worked on site for six years before COVID-19, and there was no evidence she could not return. By failing to explore this option, the employer fell outside the range of reasonable responses that a fair employer would adopt.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even when an employer has a legitimate reason for concern, they must follow a fair process. Dismissing an employee without considering alternatives — especially when a simple change of working location could resolve the issue — is likely to be unfair. For employees, it shows that raising practical solutions during a disciplinary process can strengthen a claim of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.