Persistent email misconduct: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld after series of inappropriate emails
A branch sales co-ordinator with 8 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after sending a series of inappropriate emails to senior staff, the Watford Employment Tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #email-misconduct
- #persistent-behaviour
- #failure-to-follow-procedure
- #letter-of-concern
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Branch Sales Co-ordinator from 31 May 2011 to 7 May 2019.
- He was dismissed for gross misconduct after sending a series of inappropriate emails to senior staff over several months.
- The claimant had been issued a Letter of Concern in February 2019 but continued his conduct.
- The respondent conducted an investigation and disciplinary process, including an appeal.
- The tribunal found the respondent genuinely believed in the misconduct and acted reasonably.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment with CCF Ltd as Branch Sales Co-ordinator.
-
GDPR training instruction
Claimant was instructed to complete GDPR training and raised concerns about personal data use.
-
Email to CEO
Claimant emailed CEO John Carter, copying others, raising data protection concerns in an aggressive tone.
-
Further email to CEO
Claimant sent another email to CEO with inappropriate content.
-
Phone call with Gary Turner
Claimant put down the phone on Gary Turner during a call about GDPR training.
-
Letter of Concern
Claimant received a Letter of Concern from Gary Turner as an informal disciplinary step.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended on full pay.
-
Investigation meeting
Investigation meeting held with Tony Botton; claimant raised bias concerns.
-
Disciplinary hearing (first day)
Disciplinary hearing commenced; adjourned to 7 May 2019.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing took place; appeal was dismissed on 11 July 2019.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, focusing on whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the conduct as sufficient for dismissal and followed a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The key reasons were:
- The employer genuinely believed the claimant had engaged in gross misconduct based on a series of inappropriate emails over several months.
- The employer carried out a reasonable investigation and disciplinary process, including an appeal.
- The claimant had been warned via a Letter of Concern but continued the behaviour, making dismissal a reasonable response.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Persistent misconduct, even if not serious on its own, can justify dismissal if it continues after a warning.
- Employers should ensure they have a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable investigation, even if the process is not perfect.
- Employees should take informal warnings like a Letter of Concern seriously, as they can be used to show a pattern of behaviour.
- A fair appeal process can strengthen an employer's case at tribunal.
What this case shows
This case illustrates that employers can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct when an employee's behaviour is persistent, even if each individual incident might not seem severe. The claimant, a branch sales co-ordinator with 8 years' service, sent a series of inappropriate emails to senior staff over several months, including to the CEO. Despite receiving a Letter of Concern in February 2019, he continued his conduct, leading to suspension and eventual dismissal.
What the employer did right
CCF Ltd conducted an investigation and disciplinary hearing, and provided an appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred and that the process was reasonable. The fact that the claimant had been given a clear warning and still persisted was key to the decision.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a pattern of behaviour, especially after a warning, can lead to dismissal. For employers, it shows that a fair process, even if not perfect, can withstand scrutiny if the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Night carer dismissed for moving deceased resident: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A night senior carer with over 40 years' experience was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after moving an unresponsive resident before calling 999, the tribunal has ruled.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.