Screensaver row and political chats: dismissal for gross misconduct found unfair
An employee dismissed for refusing to remove a screensaver and discussing politics at work has won his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found the appeal process was fatally flawed. No compensation was awarded at this stage.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #screensaver-dispute
- #political-canvassing
- #inappropriate-device-use
- #external-investigator
- #polkey-deduction
- #appeal-flawed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Integrated Pest Management Specialist from 28 January 2013 to 27 January 2020.
- On 15 November 2019, the claimant refused to remove a screensaver image his manager considered inappropriate.
- On 22 November 2019, a colleague made a formal bullying complaint against the claimant.
- The respondent engaged external consultants to investigate, conduct the disciplinary hearing, and hear the appeal.
- The disciplinary hearing upheld several allegations but not the most serious one of bullying.
- The same managing director, Mr Hopkins, made the decision to dismiss and also decided the appeal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an Integrated Pest Management Specialist.
-
Screensaver incident
Claimant's line manager asked him to remove a screensaver image; claimant refused.
-
Meeting and bullying complaint
Manager held a meeting about the screensaver; a colleague made a formal bullying complaint.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended following an investigation meeting.
-
Investigation meeting
External investigator Mr Tudor held an investigation meeting.
-
Investigation report
Mr Tudor reported, recommending disciplinary action for gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
External disciplinary officer Mr Yeomans held a hearing.
-
Disciplinary report
Mr Yeomans recommended dismissal without notice.
-
Dismissal
Mr Hopkins summarily dismissed the claimant.
-
Tribunal hearing
Substantive hearing of the unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was fair and reasonable, focusing on whether the disciplinary process — particularly the appeal — was procedurally sound.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal. The key reason was that the managing director, Mr Hopkins, both made the decision to dismiss and heard the appeal, which meant the appeal was not independent and could not remedy earlier procedural defects. The tribunal also noted that the external investigators and disciplinary officer had conducted a thorough process, but the appeal flaw was fatal.
Compensation was not determined at this stage; a remedy hearing will follow. The tribunal indicated a Polkey reduction of 66.66% would apply, meaning the claimant would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process, so any award will be reduced accordingly.
Lessons & takeaways
- Never let the same person who decides to dismiss also hear the appeal — independence is critical to a fair process.
- Even if you use external investigators, the overall fairness of the process can be undermined by a flawed appeal.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Refusing a reasonable management instruction — like removing a screensaver — can be a conduct issue, but the response must be proportionate.
This case shows how a seemingly minor workplace dispute over a screensaver escalated into a dismissal for gross misconduct — and why getting the appeal process right is just as important as the initial investigation.
What happened
The claimant, an Integrated Pest Management Specialist with six years' service, was dismissed after refusing to remove a screensaver image his manager considered inappropriate. This led to a formal bullying complaint from a colleague, and an investigation into political canvassing at work and inappropriate use of company devices. The employer, Fargro Ltd, brought in external consultants to investigate and conduct the disciplinary hearing — a sensible step to ensure impartiality. The disciplinary officer upheld several allegations (though not the most serious one of bullying) and recommended dismissal.
Where it went wrong
The problem came at the appeal stage. The managing director, Mr Hopkins, who had made the decision to dismiss, also heard the appeal. The tribunal found this meant the appeal was not independent and could not properly remedy any earlier procedural defects. Even though the investigation and disciplinary hearing were thorough, the appeal flaw made the overall dismissal unfair. The tribunal noted that a fair appeal might have considered whether dismissal was too harsh for conduct that was not the most serious form of gross misconduct.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness is not just about the initial stages — the appeal must be genuinely independent. Employers who use external investigators should ensure the appeal decision-maker is also independent. For employees, it shows that even if you have been dismissed for conduct like refusing an instruction or discussing politics, the fairness of the process can be challenged. However, the Polkey reduction of 66.66% means the claimant is likely to receive only a third of any compensation, reflecting the tribunal's view that he would probably have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
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.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.