Respondent won Employment Tribunal · 8 June 2023

Sales agent dismissed for taking photo of colleague's email: conduct dismissal upheld

A sales agent who photographed a colleague's email and sent it to her husband was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the Reading Employment Tribunal has ruled.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant was employed as a Sales and Reservations Agent from 10 August 2015 until dismissal on 18 November 2019.
  • The claimant admitted taking a photograph of a colleague's email and sending it to the colleague's husband.
  • The respondent conducted a thorough investigation, including 23 interviews and review of evidence.
  • The claimant did not fully engage with the disciplinary hearing, limiting her defence.
  • The respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant committed gross misconduct.
  • The dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

Timeline

  1. Employment commenced

    Claimant started working for Turkish Airlines as a Sales and Reservations Agent.

  2. Petition initiated by colleague SD

    SD started a petition containing allegations against the claimant, but it was abandoned due to lack of support.

  3. Complaint to Turkish Presidency

    Claimant complained to the Presidency of Republic of Turkey Directorate of Communications, but they could not deal with it.

  4. SD's complaint letter discovered

    Claimant found a complaint letter written by SD on a shared terminal, took a copy, and sent it to SD's husband.

  5. SD made grievance against claimant

    SD alleged claimant accessed her email and sent private information to her husband.

  6. Claimant suspended

    Claimant was suspended pending investigation into misconduct allegations.

  7. Disciplinary hearing

    Claimant attended disciplinary hearing but did not provide detailed responses to allegations.

  8. Dismissal decision

    Mr Tanberk decided claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed her summarily.

  9. Last day of employment

    Claimant's employment ended. She appealed the dismissal.

  10. Appeal hearing

    Mr Baykal heard the appeal and upheld the dismissal.

The outcome

The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.

The key reasons were:

  • The employer conducted a thorough investigation, including 23 interviews and review of evidence.
  • The claimant admitted taking a photograph of a colleague's email and sending it to the colleague's husband.
  • The employer had a genuine belief that this amounted to gross misconduct.
  • The dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

No compensation was awarded.

Lessons & takeaways

  • Admitting to the act of misconduct can significantly weaken a claim of unfair dismissal.
  • A thorough investigation by the employer, including multiple interviews, can justify a finding of gross misconduct.
  • Employees should fully engage with disciplinary hearings; failing to provide a detailed defence can harm their case.
  • Taking unauthorised access to a colleague's private communications is likely to be treated as gross misconduct.

A case of crossed boundaries at work

This case highlights how a single act of accessing a colleague's private email can lead to dismissal, even when the employee felt they were acting in response to ongoing conflict. The claimant, a sales agent with four years' service, had a history of complaints against a colleague, SD, which she felt were ignored. When she found SD's complaint letter on a shared terminal, she photographed it and sent it to SD's husband. This action, while understandable in the context of a strained relationship, crossed a clear line.

What the employer did right

Turkish Airlines conducted a thorough investigation, interviewing 23 people and reviewing evidence. The disciplinary process gave the claimant an opportunity to explain her actions, but she did not fully engage. The decision-maker formed a genuine belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct by accessing and sharing private information. The tribunal found this belief reasonable and the dismissal within the band of reasonable responses.

What this means for similar claims

For employees, this case is a reminder that taking matters into your own hands by accessing someone else's private communications is high-risk, even if you feel provoked. For employers, it shows that a robust investigation and a clear disciplinary process can defend against unfair dismissal claims. The outcome also underscores that an admission of the act can be fatal to a claim, as the tribunal focused on the reasonableness of the employer's response rather than the employee's motives.

Similar cases

Respondent won · Jun 2023

Long-serving union branch secretary dismissed for bullying: conduct dismissal upheld

A UNISON branch secretary with 49 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after two complaints of bullying and threatening behaviour. The tribunal rejected his claim that he was targeted for trade union activities.

trade-union-activitiesbullyinggross-misconduct
Respondent won · Feb 2023

Fuel depot operator dismissed for unauthorised IT access: misconduct dismissal upheld

A former fuel depot operator who repeatedly accessed his employer's IT system after being told not to has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair.

gross-misconductit-security-breachunauthorised-access
Respondent won · Nov 2022

Managing director with bipolar disorder fairly dismissed for gross misconduct

A managing director with 25 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, including a sham payment, despite his bipolar disorder. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

bipolar-disordergross-misconductsham-transaction
Respondent won · Jun 2022

26 years' service not enough to save job after sharing confidential files with competitor

A development project co-ordinator with 26 years' service was fairly dismissed for sending 11 confidential documents to his personal email and forwarding them to a former colleague at a competitor. The Sheffield tribunal upheld the employer's decision.

confidential-informationgross-misconductdisciplinary-process