Optical assistant dismissed for harassing phone call: unfair dismissal claim struck out
An optical assistant with 10 years' service was dismissed after making a harassing phone call from her employer's line. Her unfair dismissal claim was struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #telephone-call
- #criminal-conviction
- #preparation-time-order
- #litigant-in-person
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an optical assistant from 11 May 2011 until her dismissal on 9 June 2021.
- She was dismissed primarily for a telephone call she made on 26 May 2021 to her ex-husband's partner.
- The claimant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment charges related to the telephone call.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out on 12 January 2023 for having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The respondent applied for a preparation time order, which was dismissed by Employment Judge Leith.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as an optical assistant for the respondent.
-
Telephone call made
The claimant made a telephone call from the respondent's business line to Ms Satchwell, her ex-husband's partner.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed primarily because of the telephone call.
-
Claim presented
The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Lang declined to strike out the claim or make a deposit order.
-
Criminal guilty plea
The claimant pleaded guilty to harassment charges related to the telephone call.
-
Strike-out hearing
Employment Judge Leith struck out the claim for having no reasonable prospect of success.
-
Preparation time order application
The respondent applied for a preparation time order.
-
Judgment on costs application
Employment Judge Leith dismissed the respondent's application for a preparation time order.
The legal issue
Whether the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the dismissal was for misconduct that amounted to a criminal offence, and whether the claimant acted unreasonably in the proceedings.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on 12 January 2023, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success. The key reason was that the claimant had pleaded guilty to criminal harassment for the same telephone call that led to her dismissal. The respondent's application for a preparation time order was dismissed, as the tribunal found the claimant had not acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the claim.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed for conduct that is also a criminal offence, a guilty plea in criminal court will almost certainly make an unfair dismissal claim hopeless.
- Tribunals will strike out claims early if the facts show no reasonable chance of success, even before a full hearing.
- Being a litigant in person does not protect you from strike-out if the legal merits are weak.
- Employers can apply for costs (preparation time orders) against claimants who bring misconceived claims, but tribunals will only grant them if the claimant acted unreasonably.
A phone call that ended a career
This case shows how a single act of misconduct can unravel a long employment relationship and leave an employee with no legal remedy. The claimant had worked as an optical assistant for ten years when she used her employer's phone to call her ex-husband's partner. That call led to a criminal conviction for harassment and her dismissal.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal struck out the claim because the facts were clear: the claimant admitted making the call and pleaded guilty to harassment. An employer is entitled to dismiss for gross misconduct when an employee commits a criminal act in the workplace. The tribunal decided that no reasonable employer would have kept her in post, and no amount of procedural argument could change that.
What the respondent did right
Fairford Opticians Limited followed a proper process: they investigated the complaint, gave the claimant a chance to respond, and dismissed only after the criminal plea. The tribunal noted that the claimant's own case evolved inconsistently and that she made unsubstantiated allegations about a relationship with a director. The respondent's application for a preparation time order was refused, but only because the claimant had not acted unreasonably in bringing the claim initially.
What this means for similar cases
If you are dismissed for conduct that is also a crime, a criminal conviction will almost always make an unfair dismissal claim impossible. The tribunal will not second-guess an employer's decision to dismiss when the employee has admitted the misconduct in criminal court. Employees should seek legal advice early, especially when criminal proceedings are pending, to avoid wasting time and money on a hopeless claim.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Cleaning operative's unfair dismissal claims dismissed as out of time
A cleaning operative who filed two unfair dismissal claims after the three-month deadline has had both claims dismissed. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have filed in time.
NHS employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims but avoids costs order
An NHS employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed, but the tribunal refused the Trust's application for costs, finding she had a genuine belief in her case and did not act unreasonably.