Optical assistant dismissed after harassment conviction: tribunal strikes out unfair dismissal claim
An optical assistant who was convicted of harassment for a phone call made from her employer's phone had her unfair dismissal claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #private-phone-call
- #harassment-conviction
- #restraining-order
- #strike-out
- #no-reasonable-prospects
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an optical assistant from 1 May 2011 to 9 June 2021.
- On 26 May 2021, she made a 3-minute phone call from her employer's phone to her ex-husband's partner.
- The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct following a disciplinary process.
- The claimant pleaded guilty to harassment without violence in criminal proceedings related to the same phone call.
- A restraining order was imposed on the claimant, prohibiting contact with the complainant.
- The employment tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Fairford Opticians Ltd as an optical assistant.
-
Phone call made
Claimant made a 3-minute phone call from work to Ms Satchwell, her ex-husband's partner.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct following a disciplinary meeting.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant contacted ACAS.
-
Claim issued
Early conciliation certificate issued and claim presented to tribunal.
-
First preliminary hearing
EJ Lang considered strike-out application but did not strike out the claim.
-
Second preliminary hearing
EJ Hogarth found claimant complied with unless order and listed final hearing.
-
Stay pending criminal proceedings
EJ Cadney stayed tribunal proceedings due to pending criminal case.
-
Criminal outcome and strike-out application
Claimant informed tribunal of guilty plea and fine; respondent applied to strike out.
-
Preliminary hearing and strike-out
EJ Leith struck out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had a reasonable prospect of success, given her conviction for harassment related to the same conduct and the inherent implausibility of her alternative explanation for the dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant was dismissed after making a 3-minute phone call from her employer's phone to her ex-husband's partner. She later pleaded guilty to harassment without violence in criminal proceedings and a restraining order was imposed.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's conviction conclusively disproved her version of events, which was that the phone call was not the real reason for dismissal. The claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are convicted of a criminal offence related to the same conduct that led to your dismissal, it can be very difficult to argue that the dismissal was unfair.
- Tribunals can strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success, even before a full hearing, if the evidence clearly contradicts the claimant's version of events.
- A conviction for harassment or similar offences can be used by an employer as a strong basis for dismissal, and the tribunal will give significant weight to the criminal court's findings.
- If you face criminal proceedings related to your employment, it is important to consider how the outcome may affect any tribunal claim you have issued.
A phone call that ended a career
This case shows how a single act can have far-reaching consequences, both in criminal law and in employment rights. The claimant, an optical assistant with 10 years' service, made a 3-minute phone call from her employer's phone to her ex-husband's partner. That call led to her dismissal for gross misconduct and a criminal conviction for harassment without violence.
Why the claim failed
The claimant argued that the phone call was not the real reason for her dismissal, suggesting there was some other motive. However, her guilty plea in the criminal proceedings and the resulting restraining order made that argument untenable. The tribunal noted that the conviction conclusively disproved her version of events, leaving no reasonable prospect of success for her unfair dismissal claim.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that criminal convictions arising from the same conduct as a dismissal can be a powerful factor in tribunal proceedings. Employers who dismiss an employee following a conviction for harassment or similar offences are likely to have a strong defence, as the tribunal will give significant weight to the criminal court's findings. For employees, it highlights the importance of considering the potential impact of any criminal proceedings on their employment rights.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim struck out: when the disclosure comes too late
Two warehouse operatives had their automatic unfair dismissal claims for whistleblowing struck out because the alleged breaches happened before they made their protected disclosure. The tribunal said the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.
Race discrimination claim partly struck out: third-party motive not enough
A tribunal struck out one part of a former employee's race discrimination claim because the alleged discriminatory act was carried out by a third party, but allowed other allegations to proceed.
Claim struck out: no employment relationship with Financial Ombudsman Service
A former complainant who claimed to be an employee of the Financial Ombudsman Service had all his claims struck out after failing to attend a preliminary hearing and providing no evidence of an employment relationship.
Short service employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service
A former employee who worked for Norpol Recycling Limited for less than two years had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he did not meet the qualifying period. The tribunal also found his disability discrimination claim was out of time.