A better summary of the ruling is that "Companies must follow their own procedures".
You can't fire someone without process. The ruling is that this wasn't "gross misconduct", and proper procedure for dealing with the behaviour should have been followed.
So before someone comes in claiming the UK to be an unruly anarchy, if you go around dissing the boss or your company then you'll still find yourself facing disciplinary action and could be eventually sacked, just not on the spot!
nness 3 hours ago [-]
What is of note is that you cannot typically claim unfair dismissal if you've been employed for less than 2-years in the UK. Seems she was employed more than 2-years and passed the qualifying period. Proves if you plan to run a business and hire employees, you got to understand the protections in place.
skygazer 51 minutes ago [-]
Does the UK have above average just-shy-of-two-years turnover? Seems there might be a small incentive to let people go before that threshold.
munk-a 43 minutes ago [-]
Not from what I've seen - that small incentive is usually outweighed by the immense burden of retraining and finding a good candidate.
It's similar to probationary periods - you'll see a few people fired right at the three month mark but it's usually more of a case of giving that employee grace for the probationary period rather than accelerating a firing that'd happen later.
113 33 minutes ago [-]
I've definitely known places to find ways to get rid of staff before 2 years are up but they tend to be hospitality jobs.
hungmung 46 minutes ago [-]
In America we like to fire anyone right before they get a chance to collect on any retirement benefits.
cactusplant7374 27 minutes ago [-]
I have never worked at a job that had those kind of benefits.
hungmung 20 minutes ago [-]
They never existed if nobody ever gets to collect on them.
fmbb 1 hours ago [-]
If you plan to run a business I hope you take it seriously enough to not fire anyone that hurts your feelings.
bgirard 1 hours ago [-]
> hurts your feelings
Let's not trivialize verbal abuse by calling it hurt feelings.
fkyoureadthedoc 55 minutes ago [-]
Let's not trivialize upending someone's entire life because they hurt your feelings.
integralid 50 minutes ago [-]
"Let's not trivialize firing someone because they (verbally) abused someone"? Are you OK with mobbing in the workplace? They may be "just words" but the can actually have a huge mental negative effect on someone, especially if sustained.
I'm not saying this level of seriousness is what happened here, but you exaggerate in the other direction.
latchup 23 minutes ago [-]
As with all forms of verbal abuse, the presence of a power imbalance is paramount. And since we abolished slavery, it is about as high as it gets here.
What an employee says about their boss generally has zero implications on their career and lives, so long as it does not outright accuse them of a crime. When's the last time someone called you to provide a reference on your boss? I thought so.
In turn, what a boss says about their employees can be entirely career-ending and therefore life-altering, even if said in jest or later retracted. A higher standard exists precisely because the stakes are so much higher.
juanani 4 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
dgfitz 50 minutes ago [-]
In a strange plot twist, calling trivial things “abuse” is what actually trivializes abuse.
wizzwizz4 6 minutes ago [-]
I'd say that making such determinations based on fragmentary information, such as decontextualised headlines, is a better characterisation. Arguments like these (where some people say "it's abuse!" and others say "it's not abuse!", and nobody focuses on how they're not using the same "it") make the lines seem blurred when actually, it's pretty clear-cut most of the time.
forgetfreeman 40 minutes ago [-]
Someone calling names is pretty trivial though, literally the behavior of schoolyard children, and it certainly should take more than that to rattle an adult.
cactusplant7374 28 minutes ago [-]
Calling others names shows a total lack of self-control and disrespect towards others. It's toxic in personal relationships too. If my boss called me names I would rm -rf my hard drive and walk out immediately. I have too much self respect to deal with that.
bryanrasmussen 2 hours ago [-]
so if the company had a rule you are not allowed to swear at anyone and may be summarily fired it would be ok? What are the requirements of process?
beardyw 1 hours ago [-]
It all hangs on "reasonableness" for which there is no legal definition. Generally if there is no lasting harm (like setting fire to the office) then there is a process like a three strikes rule in which the employee is given a chance to mend their ways (like not swearing).
d1sxeyes 3 hours ago [-]
No, it's not just that—even if the company's policies said so, they still might have been found to have unlawfully dismissed her...
Anyway, main point is that points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead', and then 134-136 say 'and even your own guidelines say so'.
ceejayoz 3 hours ago [-]
Points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead ONCE'. Which seems fairly reasonable.
otterley 1 hours ago [-]
"On the facts of this case" is a load-bearing clause. This finding does not have the force of law.
acoard 2 hours ago [-]
It's completely unreasonable. Calling someone a dickhead in any professional environment is unprofessional and should be grounds for dismissal.
Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.
Lanolderen 1 hours ago [-]
Depends on where you want to draw the line.. I definitely prefer teams where you don't have to play oral minesweeper all day. It just results in everyone being obviously two faced.. If I do something very stupid, it's fine to snap and call me a dickhead, as long as we keep getting along the other 99% of the time. It's even fine to do it lovingly when I'm doing minor stupid activities. Of course there are limits but for me it's very far from 'do it once and I'm running to HR'
ryandrake 45 minutes ago [-]
Maybe I'm just extremely lucky with my coworkers, but I've been working for 25+ years, and it's never occurred to me to call a co-worker a dickhead. It really should not be that hard to keep it professional and avoid insulting people.
"Not calling someone a dickhead" should not take constant cognitive load or feel like "playing minesweeper" all day.
KaiserPro 52 minutes ago [-]
> Calling someone a dickhead in any professional environment is unprofessional
The fuck it is. There is a while bunch of preconditions that need to be met first. (for example, if you're working as a teacher, its probably unproffesh, but as an engineer[a real one, not a software engineer], you need to call a spade a spade.)
You can't have "professionalism" as a mask to allow abuse or general degrading treatment at work.
crucially the person in question used dickheads non-pejoratively, it wasn't an insult. However the employer didn't follow procedure either.
HappyPanacea 1 hours ago [-]
This is highly dependent on culture
wulfstan 1 hours ago [-]
In Australia this would be considered normal office conversation.
sefrost 1 hours ago [-]
I started my career in the UK around 2010 and it could have been normal banter at that point but I feel workplace relationships have generally become more corporate and risk-averse since then and it wouldn't be acceptable in most office environments anymore. I suppose everyone will have a different experience.
ceejayoz 2 hours ago [-]
> Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.
If their employment contract requires it, sure. This worker's contract guaranteed them a warning in this scenario. They are protected by that legally binding contract. That's the entire point of it.
Even outside a contract, consequences for actions should be proportional to the harm of those actions. "You called me a mild insult in the heat of the moment after years of productive employment, so I'm removing your livelihood" is not.
2 hours ago [-]
jameshart 1 hours ago [-]
I feel like it should also at least have some material bearing on the judgement if the boss is, in fact, a dickhead.
masfuerte 1 hours ago [-]
The instant dismissal provides some strong evidence on that question.
huimang 1 hours ago [-]
Of course it depends on the context, but firing someone over one offense of calling someone a dickhead is quite reactionary and punitive. Grow up. Sometimes people say things they regret in the moment, it doesn't mean someone and potentially their family should be affected. This is why you have policies, writeups and whatnot. Not jumping at the chance to fire someone.
dgacmu 1 hours ago [-]
People grow and learn and one of your primary jobs as a manager is to help them do so. We're all human and mess up - one dickhead seems like a cause for a warning. Multiple dickheads suggest someone isn't learning, and _that_ is a good reason to fire them.
> No, it's not just that—even if the company's policies said so, they still might have been found to have unlawfully dismissed her...
The sections you quoted don't support this statement. The quoted statements highlight contractual clauses which include "excessive" foul language which one instance of calling someone a dickhead does not approach. The only point a single instance of swearing could be grounds for dismissal were against a customer, which is specifically highlighted in the contract.
Were the contract to include a clause of "you will not swear at other employees," then that would have been sufficient. Now, whether that falls foul of the Equality Act (due to discriminatory treatment) is a different question. You can't extrapolate any result of that from this case, however.
d1sxeyes 34 minutes ago [-]
128 covers whether it was in line with the company’s processes or not.
It’s actually not against the Equality Act to treat employees differently, as long as you don’t do it because of a protected characteristic.
gowld 2 hours ago [-]
> Further, whilst not determinative in itself of whether or not the dismissal was
unfair, this one off comment did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct
so serious to justify summary dismissal for reasons that I have provided above.
That part of the ruling is independent of the company policies.
IshKebab 2 hours ago [-]
Right but isn't the point that you can be fairly dismissed for things other than gross misconduct?
scott_w 1 hours ago [-]
Yes, poor performance could be one. Breach of contract is another, for example, doing something counter to your job. This is different from gross misconduct, as gross misconduct doesn't have to be enumerated in your contract. For example, punching your colleague is both illegal and will likely get you fired for gross misconduct. My contract doesn't have a clause that says "don't assault your colleagues."
d1sxeyes 53 minutes ago [-]
Yep. But generally not instant dismissal.
Although apparently they did actually try to pay her for her notice period and she sent it back? This case is a whole load of fun to read through.
2 hours ago [-]
bombcar 3 hours ago [-]
A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed.
You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse" but then you have to be careful that it might be turned on the bosses and cause another type of lawsuit.
Aurornis 3 hours ago [-]
HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone.
That’s why I don’t see these rulings as a win for the common employee. The situation now encourages companies to be as broad as possible with their contracts and policies and include so many just-in-case provisions that it starts to get hard for anyone to know and follow all of them.
scott_w 2 hours ago [-]
> HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone.
No, they aren't because that's not how contracts or the law work in the UK. The court found that the contract enumerated a long list of breaches of contract, of which "swearing at colleagues" was not in that list. This means the court read the list as exhaustive, because it appeared to be exhaustive.
If the contract was worded differently, the court may not have used this interpretive rule. If the wording was a little more broad, the court may have worked to determine whether "swearing at your boss" could reasonably fit into the terms.
_benedict 2 hours ago [-]
No, the ruling expressly refers to the list as non exhaustive, but given the other related references to misconduct (including the use of inappropriate language) it was not reasonable to infer that this example was gross misconduct.
Aurornis 2 hours ago [-]
> No, they aren't because that's not how contracts or the law work in the UK. The court found that the contract enumerated a long list of breaches of contract, of which "swearing at colleagues" was not in that list. This means the court read the list as exhaustive, because it appeared to be exhaustive.
Yes, and that's why I said HR and Legal are updating their boilerplate to be more exhaustive.
toomuchtodo 2 hours ago [-]
UK companies are not going to be able to out engineer UK labor protections to arrive at the US' at will experience. Such is the point of labor laws and protections. They can update the procedures, they'll still end up in court or tribunals. This is not the US (thankfully).
Aurornis 2 hours ago [-]
Obviously contracts can't override labor laws
I'm saying they're going to update the contracts to match the labor laws.
If the labor laws say you have to have fireable offenses explicitly enumerated, contracts will now have a lot of fireable offenses explicitly enumerated. That's not evading the law, that's literally how you comply with the law.
ceejayoz 2 hours ago [-]
> If the labor laws say you have to have fireable offenses explicitly enumerated...
They don't, nor does this decision.
The company simply didn't follow the rules of the employment contract, which both parties had agreed to.
scott_w 1 hours ago [-]
> I'm saying they're going to update the contracts to match the labor laws.
No they're not. This ruling makes no difference to the legal, employment or contractual landscape of the UK. Reading the ruling, it was resolved in exactly the way any competent HR lawyer would expect. The employer was bang out of order and was rightly slapped down by the court.
> If the labor laws say you have to have fireable offenses explicitly enumerated
No they don't. As others have pointed out: the ruling flags that the contract itself enumerates gross misconduct offences. Some of which include "excessive swearing" or "swearing at customers." Given the context of what the contract does enumerate, the court found that the contract does not consider this, obviously, lesser misconduct was out of scope of gross misconduct, as per the terms of the contract.
If the contract did not include such a specific list, but merely described a more broad category of things that are considered gross misconduct, then the court might have ruled differently.
tialaramex 1 hours ago [-]
> HR and legal across the UK are probably updating their company procedures right now to include every imaginable reason they might want to fire someone.
If you want to fire someone you follow procedure. In this case they didn't follow procedure. This is exactly the sort of situation HR already despairs over.
Writing new HR documents can't fix this, the same way that bolding the text "Do not press this button" in the instruction manual will not stop customers who don't read the manual and then press the button from doing so.
This also just obviously isn't gross misconduct. So now your rewritten procedures might get you sued which (checks notes) is the opposite of what you wanted.
Twirrim 2 hours ago [-]
Based on conversations with a relative in HR in the UK, usually the company procedures are detailed and cover everything. You just have to follow the procedure. Most of the pain they ever had to deal with has come down to managers etc. acting off the cuff, not following the documented process.
KaiserPro 43 minutes ago [-]
> broad as possible with their contracts
have you read any of your company's policys recently?
at one company I could be technically fired for wearing a tracksuit to work.
at a FAANG, one that was very famous for upholding "freedom of expression", could fire me for questioning _in private_ the direction of anyone more senior than me.
Even if those policies are broad and all encompassing, you still need to demonstrate that they were applied correctly, proportionally and reasonably.
You also need to prove that the _policy_ is reasonable as well.
for example you _could_ have a policy where you cannot say anything negative. Good luck trying to prove that its legally reasonable (and that it was applied evenly)
ceejayoz 3 hours ago [-]
They'd best be prepared to enforce it evenly, then, or the next suit is "my boss called me a dickhead 43 times without any consequences, and that's discriminatory".
Aurornis 2 hours ago [-]
Which is another loss for the common employee, because now if you mistakenly violate one of those voluminous company policies or you're having a bad day and make a small lapse of judgment, they're going to feel obligated to punish you for it to avoid more legal infractions.
ceejayoz 2 hours ago [-]
Or, as said rules also apply to the boss, they might feel obligated to be a bit more reasonable.
In this case, all they had to do was issue a warning - as they promosed to do in the contract - instead of a summary firing for the first offense. If the behavior reoccurred they'd have been clear.
tempfile 2 hours ago [-]
Doesn't every win for the common employee encourage companies to be as broad as possible? What would count as a "real win" by your standard?
crote 2 hours ago [-]
> You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse"
That's just going to lead to a lawsuit on the definition of "verbal abuse".
> A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed.
Even specifically stating that might not work. It is not uncommon for such clauses to be struck through in court if they are deemed unfair and disproportionally punitive to the employee.
For a regular office drone otherwise in good standing, given the UK's cultural context, getting fired for calling your boss a "dickhead" is an extremely harsh punishment. An official warning, improvement plan, or some kind of training would be more appropriate.
jrockway 3 hours ago [-]
From the article:
> However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal.
It seems like the prior warning is the necessary part. The company obviously wants to write the rules such that the upper management team can make a one-off stupid comment to an employee without the employee suing to get them fired. Unfortunately, this means the upper management team can't rage-fire someone with no thought. (No doubt to show how in charge and powerful they are, which kind of proves the person using the term "dickhead" right.)
KaiserPro 47 minutes ago [-]
> A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed.
Nope, needs to be reasonable. If you're doing something unusual, then it needs to be telegraphed and backed up so that if you are taken to court you can give evidence as to why that clause was needed.
> have something generic like "verbal abuse"
you would need to have a policy that defines what verbal abuse is, and a way to record and catagorise it. its also a hard task to prove that one instance of verbal abuse where using "dickhead" as a term of endearment without any other connotations (sexual or otherwise) is gross misconduct, especially as the reply was "you can fuck off"
isodev 3 hours ago [-]
Is calling a colleague dickhead really “verbal abuse”, though?
I think trying to fire someone based on that rather than addressing whatever conflict or friction lead to the “name calling” is an example of bad management.
47 minutes ago [-]
toast0 3 hours ago [-]
No, dickhead is a noun; nounal abuse is tolerated.
Telling someone to fuck off could be verbal abuse, as fuck is a verb. But in this case it was not the purely figurative suggestion to fuck off was the britishism meaning to please leave with haste.
gowld 2 hours ago [-]
"is" is an intransitive linking verb.
Saying "You're a dickhead" is verbal abuse. Saying "Dickhead" alone is nounal abuse.
WesolyKubeczek 3 hours ago [-]
“So, my corpus-cavernosum-for-brain boss…”
throw849rjrjri 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jonplackett 3 hours ago [-]
Is English your second language?
Dickhead is really quite a mild insult.
throw849rjrjri 2 hours ago [-]
It is the same as c×nt or sugartits! It is not 1980 anymore!
They could use neutral a×hole, without sexual assault!
nness 3 hours ago [-]
What are you on about?
BenFranklin100 2 hours ago [-]
While that may be true in the UK, most US states are employee-at-will states. There doesn’t need to be a reason.
moomin 2 hours ago [-]
Ok, but that’s more of an argument that the US is an unruly anarchy.
BenFranklin100 2 hours ago [-]
The United States is far from an anarchy. There are a huge number of regulations governing employer-employee relationships.
The topic is flexibility in hiring/ firing decisions and whether this flexibility is a good or bad thing overall. The empirical data between US and Europe - where the US has much higher wages and generally lower unemployment - suggests but does not prove this flexibility contributes to a better overall job market. In the US employers may be quicker to fire you, but they are also quicker to hire you.
Personally, as an employee I like the flexibility. If I do a good job, it’s rare to get fired, and I have more ability to jump ship if don’t like my current job.
saghm 2 hours ago [-]
That's mostly true, but I think there's still a bit of nuance; while there isn't really a defined list of acceptable reasons, there are some reasons that are specifically not allowed, like firing someone for race, gender, etc.
Of course, you could argue that being allowed to fire people for pretty much anything other than discrimination makes it an uphill battle to prove it if you were fired illegally, but I'm not attempting to make a defense of the system, just explain my understanding of it.
s1artibartfast 3 hours ago [-]
And why do companies have to follow their process without deviation?
The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract.
ceejayoz 3 hours ago [-]
> The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract.
No, it doesn't. The business process was part of the legally binding contract.
> The hearing was told that under the terms of her contract, she could be fired for “the provocative use of insulting or abusive language”. However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal.
s1artibartfast 2 hours ago [-]
My reading of the article was that the former was stated in the contract, and the latter was the judicial finding. In retrospect,I suppose this is unclear from the article.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
That's not my reading of it, but to remove all doubt, the judicial finding details the employment contract.
> Section 15 and 16 of the contract deal with disciplinary rules and unsatisfactory
work and misconduct. Sections 18, 19 and 20 specify the respondent’s
disciplinary procedures. Section 21 details the appeals procedure. The
grievance procedure and grievance appeal procedure are laid out at section 22.
> At section 16 there is a list of the type of conduct or unsatisfactory work that
may lead to dismissal after a prior warning has been given. There is a non
exhaustive list of examples which include negligence, carelessness or general
lack of capability in performance of the employees duties, bad timekeeping and
the provocative use of insulting or abusive language.
arethuza 3 hours ago [-]
Because employees in the UK generally have contracts of employment that both parties have to follow?
jameshart 3 hours ago [-]
Because process is what ensures that people subject to the same contract terms all receive equal and fair treatment.
You fire one person for calling their boss a dickhead, you’d better be sure you never allowed someone on the same contract to call their boss a dickhead without being fired.
gowld 2 hours ago [-]
That's not true. Firing is an option, not an obligation.
Forgiving a fireable offense in one case doesn't mean every case must be forgiven.
3 hours ago [-]
zhengyi13 3 hours ago [-]
I dunno about you all, but I've immediately dropped this into the team Slack channel with a Professor Farnsworth "Good News Everyone!" gif.
apparent 13 minutes ago [-]
Whereas in Germany, one can have their house raided for calling a politician a dick (and be investigated for calling a politician fat). [1]
In Philly it's the only way to get hired. Go Birds DH!!
squarefoot 3 hours ago [-]
In some places being fired after a clash with someone above your level counts almost as a gift. They know so many ways to make your life miserable without being it noticeable from the outside, so that if you don't wear a tough skin and can't manage the fine art of forgetting about work problems when you walk out of the office until the following day, leaving becomes the preferable option.
hinkley 24 minutes ago [-]
My bigger problem with stuff like this is the people left behind. Every firing and layoff becomes a commentary on what the company actually values versus what they should value. It’s one of the reasons I prefer to be laid off in round 2. It means they didn’t think you were the worst, but also there’s still severance and they haven’t yet rewarded the most loyal employees with the most pain.
Nevermark 1 hours ago [-]
The recommended way to call your boss XYZ, is simply to ask your boss what the company policy implications would be, if you called them an XYZ.
gwd 3 hours ago [-]
I mean, context is everything. Whether "dickhead" is unacceptable really depends on the culture of the workplace communication. If the response to someone calling you a "dickhead" is that you tell them twice to "fuck off", you're going to have a hard time making the argument that your workplace communication is expected to be explitive-free. And, "I only stayed here because of you two dickheads" is hardly toxic -- it's elegantly (by certain metrics) communicating an anguished sense of personal loyalty betrayed.
In another context, where "dickhead" was really out of place in the expected communication culture, and where it was really meant to be toxic rather than used to expressed an anguished sense of betrayed loyalty, "Mrs. Jones, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave the building. The personal effects from your desk can be collected from reception tomorrow" might be more tolerated.
arethuza 3 hours ago [-]
"anguished sense of personal loyalty betrayed"
That's pretty much how I read it.
toast0 2 hours ago [-]
Fuck off here is the britishism meaning please leave with much haste. It's a totally appropriate term.
KaiserPro 40 minutes ago [-]
I mean yes, yes it is, but thats clearly a pejorative, where as "i'm only here because of you two dickheads" isnt
If you upgrade it to "you two fucks" it still probably isnt.
"you two caaaaaaants", you would need to test if they are from glasgow or parts of london/essex
cedilla 2 hours ago [-]
By that argument "dickhead" is just a britishism meaning "unreasonable person" and just as appropriate.
anonymousDan 3 hours ago [-]
Result! More seriously, it seems kind of reasonable as a judgement for a one-off remark made in the heat of the moment.
arethuza 3 hours ago [-]
And its a "scaffolding and brickwork company" - I mean have you ever heard scaffolders at work?
bombcar 3 hours ago [-]
From the construction crews I've been on, not calling the boss a dickhead is grounds for being very suspect, if not fired ...
Yizahi 1 hours ago [-]
I love how she got compensated for legal fees. This should be noted higher in the article or even in the header, to show people that suing corporations can be safe (in some circumstances and countries).
IAmBroom 1 hours ago [-]
AFAIK that's standard in the British court system.
tialaramex 1 minutes ago [-]
It depends. This was an employment tribunal, and it will typically decide that both parties should pay their own costs, however the tribunal is entitled to conclude that one of the parties was sufficiently wrong that there shouldn't have been a tribunal, and so they should pay everybody's costs.
This creates an incentive to settle rather than waste the tribunal's time when you're fucked.
The nastiest thing I've seen is Putin, via a surrogate, files a case, court accepts despite the Russian origin, the case is bullshit and they'll lose, but when the court says "This case was a waste of our time, losers pay for everything" the surrogate's lawyers go oh, sorry, that Russian surrogate has vanished, conveniently just after paying our high fees.
I think reform to ensure that either the surrogate must pay for insurance or that the state of Russia is on the hook not an amazing vanishing surrogate is needed. Or we could just penalize the hired guns, bankrupt a few millionaire law partners ?
fooker 2 hours ago [-]
Do that but also save others from joining toxic teams:
In Germany it's fully illegal (to insult someone, generally speaking)
mingus88 3 hours ago [-]
It’s worth pointing out that there will always be consequences, regardless of the legality.
Insulting a C-level exec is tantamount to a professional suicide note.
KaiserPro 39 minutes ago [-]
you've got to roll for charisma first.
I once told a whole bunch of senior execs "they'd totally bollocksed it up" (I have a photo of it somehere)
arethuza 3 hours ago [-]
Only if they find out though? ;-)
toast0 2 hours ago [-]
How dense do you think your C-level is that they won't find out you called them dickheads in a meeting with them?
ratelimitsteve 55 minutes ago [-]
"Reviewing the Q1 results vis a vis EBITA and thinking we could take the organization in a bit less of a phallocephalic direction than current leadership seems to desire..."
ta1243 2 hours ago [-]
> Insulting a C-level exec is tantamount to a professional suicide note.
I guess it depends on the exec and your relationship with them
em-bee 2 hours ago [-]
that's way to simplified. illegal means, you break the law and must necessarily be punished. but insults are only prosecuted by request of the insulted, and even if that happens, they are not necessarily grounds to be fired. the person making the insult may be punished in some other way.
it depends on the courts though, and it also depends on the relationship between the two people. the more close they are the less likely the accusation of insult is going to stand. stories about such cases go both ways.
arethuza 3 hours ago [-]
Would you be sacked immediately if you insulted your boss in the middle of a heated argument?
randomNumber7 2 hours ago [-]
It could be worse if they report you and you get penalized by a court.
Most sane companies would probably not do that, but you never know (especially in Germany)
echoangle 3 hours ago [-]
Depends on the company but I would say generally maybe not, unless you stand by it later and refuse to apologize.
IncreasePosts 3 hours ago [-]
Huh? So I can't call a stranger in the street a Schwammpilz?
pixelpoet 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, in theory it's illegal to call people Wichsfresse
cooper_ganglia 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
labrador 2 hours ago [-]
In America bosses brag about being dick heads in LinkedIn posts about how being tough (an asshole) increased B2B sales.
RajT88 15 minutes ago [-]
I'm not sure we should take the story at face value.
Someone in the UK calling their boss a dickhead, instead of a tosser, pillock, bellend, prat, knob or wanker? Unlikely.
nashashmi 4 hours ago [-]
> this one-off comment did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct so serious to justify summary dismissal.
So full lack of professionalism is still a ground for termination. Nothing to see here. Headline is clickbait.
Spontaneous burst of anger is a small incident. Multiple small incidents can still establish a pattern of lacking professionalism.
My hopes were nearly up for a second.
idiomat9000 3 hours ago [-]
The amount of choleric bosses i met, it depends .. if your boss regularly throws things after people insulting him is okay.
45 minutes ago [-]
3 hours ago [-]
hinkley 27 minutes ago [-]
But what if he objectively is a dickhead.
dudeinjapan 2 hours ago [-]
What if your boss is named Mr. Richard Head?
ratelimitsteve 55 minutes ago [-]
Phil O. Kephalos
yomismoaqui 3 hours ago [-]
Unrelated: every time I see the word dickhead I have to re-watch this work of art:
Lawyers and judges finding ways to make money for themselves. It is obvious nothing productive will ever come out of a configuration where employee calls their boss a dickhead, and the company wants to get rid of such an employee. The only benefit of such a ruling is governments and companies spending more money on lawyers, judges, rulings and all this legal bullshittery.
dataflow 2 hours ago [-]
> It is obvious nothing productive will ever come out
Is someone being able to continue paying their bills and given an opportunity to find other jobs before they have to rely on safety nets unproductive?
Is holding companies to their own policies unproductive?
Whose perspective are you caring about here?
alwahi 3 hours ago [-]
did we have to go to court to figure this out?
scott_w 3 hours ago [-]
Clearly, yes, because the employer sacked someone and found out that they aren't allowed to...
bell-cot 3 hours ago [-]
Only if your boss is a d*ckhead.
OrvalWintermute 2 hours ago [-]
what about a MFing SOB POS? :)
gorfian_robot 3 hours ago [-]
what about an "asshat"? (asking for a friend)
GJim 3 hours ago [-]
You mean an arsehat?
No, because in Blighty, that isn't a proper insult.
People would think you odd for using silly Americanisms and simply call you a festering cheesy bellend in return.
salawat 1 hours ago [-]
Asshat is like an asshole, but with an added shade of the subject being functionally useless.
metalman 2 hours ago [-]
in Canada you can tell even the police to fuck off, but not fuck you, which generaly seems a good place to put the line, so actualy calling someone a dickhead would not be ok, comenting on the situation as bieng dicked or fucked, screwed, etc
the exception would be if there was no seperation and the boss was also a sole descision maker or business owner, but in a large company a "boss" is
just an employee who cant be held directly and completly resonsible for dickery.
SilverElfin 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
4ndrewl 3 hours ago [-]
You've misunderstood both of those examples, but it's unclear whether it's deliberate and you're just trying to be edgy.
pydry 2 hours ago [-]
>you can’t say you like bacon
Not if the subtext is very obviously "...unlike those f**ing Jews/Muslims".
If there's no subtext, nobody will blink.
4ndrewl 2 hours ago [-]
Saying anything bacon related in front of the pigs (slang for police) has _always_ been a sure fire way to wind them up and get your collar felt. You're only doing that if you're looking for a scrap.
tempfile 2 hours ago [-]
But this is not a free speech issue. I don't think there is anywhere this would not be protected speech.
4ndrewl 2 hours ago [-]
There's a difference between Free Speech - which is a power relation wrt the legislative branch, and freedom of consequences of your speech - which is a power relation wrt the executive.
tempfile 1 hours ago [-]
But what does that have to do with your comment? "a sure fire way to wind them up and get your collar felt" is more about being hassled by police, not really what power relation you have to the executive branch of the government.
Also it is not really true that "free speech" and "freedom from consequences of your speech" are separate. Protecting free speech literally means protection from consequences, if there are no consequences then there's nothing to protect you from.
snapcaster 2 hours ago [-]
Incidents like this make me feel better about the US. At least we don't yet have cops arresting people for subtext and fellow citizens defending it
2 hours ago [-]
olddustytrail 1 hours ago [-]
Sarcasm? Or you don't know any black people?
tempfile 2 hours ago [-]
It is not hard to understand (which is not to say you have to agree with it). It merely puts a significant weight on the intent and expected outcome of the speech. In the case of screaming "I love bacon" at a Muslim it is obvious that the intent is to make people feel unwelcome and probably intimidated, which is not excusable. In this case it is an understandable, if not ideal, emotional reaction to a heated situation.
nickstan 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
olddustytrail 3 hours ago [-]
You would think examples like this would demonstrate to you that your thinking was wrong, but instead you just double down on it.
cubefox 3 hours ago [-]
We already have enough evidence of people in the UK getting arrested for saying things on social media.
She said she wouldn’t care if the hotels were set on fire.
“Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care.”
That “for all I care” changes the whole meaning of the sentence.
olddustytrail 2 hours ago [-]
She clearly disagreed with you since she pled guilty.
rsynnott 2 hours ago [-]
Generally, _inciting violence_. I mean, agree with that being punishable or not, you've got to admit that it is in a different _category_ to calling some dickhead a dickhead.
olddustytrail 2 hours ago [-]
No, there are examples of people saying things that break a law getting arrested.
There seems to be this bizarre belief that it's fine to engage in incitement to violence, harassment or stalking, as long as it's done on social media.
It's not. They would be illegal via phone calls and they're still illegal on X or Facebook.
IncreasePosts 3 hours ago [-]
Is it for saying dickhead? Or is it for things like making terroristic threats and spreading racial hatred?
cubefox 2 hours ago [-]
Pointing out highly increased crime rates of certain groups of asylum immigrants is not "spreading racial hatred". The emotional reaction to these crimes is a different matter.
throw849rjrjri 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jonplackett 3 hours ago [-]
Anyone unhappy with your job - quick go call your boss a dickhead and get sacked before they read this!
ceejayoz 3 hours ago [-]
Check your employment contract first, as that was the sticking point here.
robofanatic 3 hours ago [-]
well, can't you simply leave if you are unhappy?
dfxm12 3 hours ago [-]
Kerrie Herbert has been awarded almost £30,000 in compensation and legal costs after an employment tribunal found she had been unfairly dismissed.
Not without collecting damages.
fourseventy 2 hours ago [-]
I'm glad my company is in the United States. Imagine an employee calling you a dickhead to your face and not being able to fire them, ridiculous.
ratelimitsteve 49 minutes ago [-]
the article makes it plain that this is a miscomprehension of the situation
BenFranklin100 2 hours ago [-]
Absolutely.
exe34 30 minutes ago [-]
have you tried not being a dickhead?
cindyllm 25 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
sentrysapper 3 hours ago [-]
'Sackable' was a great word choice. Well done Guardian.
cwmma 3 hours ago [-]
That's not a choice by the Guardian, that's the regular normal way of saying fireable in British English
stefanos82 3 hours ago [-]
English language can be a landmine if you are not careful, especially as a foreigner! lol
falcor84 3 hours ago [-]
You piqued my interest - in what language is the literal translation of "dickhead" not insulting? And what does it imply in that language?
arethuza 2 hours ago [-]
In the UK words like that can also equally be used as terms of endearment amongst friends... context is everything.
throw849rjrjri 53 minutes ago [-]
Great, from now on I will call my secretary sugartits, because she is really sweet...
Rendered at 18:00:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
You can't fire someone without process. The ruling is that this wasn't "gross misconduct", and proper procedure for dealing with the behaviour should have been followed.
So before someone comes in claiming the UK to be an unruly anarchy, if you go around dissing the boss or your company then you'll still find yourself facing disciplinary action and could be eventually sacked, just not on the spot!
It's similar to probationary periods - you'll see a few people fired right at the three month mark but it's usually more of a case of giving that employee grace for the probationary period rather than accelerating a firing that'd happen later.
Let's not trivialize verbal abuse by calling it hurt feelings.
I'm not saying this level of seriousness is what happened here, but you exaggerate in the other direction.
What an employee says about their boss generally has zero implications on their career and lives, so long as it does not outright accuse them of a crime. When's the last time someone called you to provide a reference on your boss? I thought so.
In turn, what a boss says about their employees can be entirely career-ending and therefore life-altering, even if said in jest or later retracted. A higher standard exists precisely because the stakes are so much higher.
The actual judgement is a trip: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ae81ed8bc29... (these are her in-laws!!!)
Anyway, main point is that points 129 and 130 basically say 'you can't dismiss someone for calling their boss a dickhead', and then 134-136 say 'and even your own guidelines say so'.
Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.
"Not calling someone a dickhead" should not take constant cognitive load or feel like "playing minesweeper" all day.
The fuck it is. There is a while bunch of preconditions that need to be met first. (for example, if you're working as a teacher, its probably unproffesh, but as an engineer[a real one, not a software engineer], you need to call a spade a spade.)
You can't have "professionalism" as a mask to allow abuse or general degrading treatment at work.
crucially the person in question used dickheads non-pejoratively, it wasn't an insult. However the employer didn't follow procedure either.
If their employment contract requires it, sure. This worker's contract guaranteed them a warning in this scenario. They are protected by that legally binding contract. That's the entire point of it.
Even outside a contract, consequences for actions should be proportional to the harm of those actions. "You called me a mild insult in the heat of the moment after years of productive employment, so I'm removing your livelihood" is not.
The sections you quoted don't support this statement. The quoted statements highlight contractual clauses which include "excessive" foul language which one instance of calling someone a dickhead does not approach. The only point a single instance of swearing could be grounds for dismissal were against a customer, which is specifically highlighted in the contract.
Were the contract to include a clause of "you will not swear at other employees," then that would have been sufficient. Now, whether that falls foul of the Equality Act (due to discriminatory treatment) is a different question. You can't extrapolate any result of that from this case, however.
It’s actually not against the Equality Act to treat employees differently, as long as you don’t do it because of a protected characteristic.
That part of the ruling is independent of the company policies.
Although apparently they did actually try to pay her for her notice period and she sent it back? This case is a whole load of fun to read through.
You might even be able to have something generic like "verbal abuse" but then you have to be careful that it might be turned on the bosses and cause another type of lawsuit.
That’s why I don’t see these rulings as a win for the common employee. The situation now encourages companies to be as broad as possible with their contracts and policies and include so many just-in-case provisions that it starts to get hard for anyone to know and follow all of them.
No, they aren't because that's not how contracts or the law work in the UK. The court found that the contract enumerated a long list of breaches of contract, of which "swearing at colleagues" was not in that list. This means the court read the list as exhaustive, because it appeared to be exhaustive.
If the contract was worded differently, the court may not have used this interpretive rule. If the wording was a little more broad, the court may have worked to determine whether "swearing at your boss" could reasonably fit into the terms.
Yes, and that's why I said HR and Legal are updating their boilerplate to be more exhaustive.
I'm saying they're going to update the contracts to match the labor laws.
If the labor laws say you have to have fireable offenses explicitly enumerated, contracts will now have a lot of fireable offenses explicitly enumerated. That's not evading the law, that's literally how you comply with the law.
They don't, nor does this decision.
The company simply didn't follow the rules of the employment contract, which both parties had agreed to.
No they're not. This ruling makes no difference to the legal, employment or contractual landscape of the UK. Reading the ruling, it was resolved in exactly the way any competent HR lawyer would expect. The employer was bang out of order and was rightly slapped down by the court.
> If the labor laws say you have to have fireable offenses explicitly enumerated
No they don't. As others have pointed out: the ruling flags that the contract itself enumerates gross misconduct offences. Some of which include "excessive swearing" or "swearing at customers." Given the context of what the contract does enumerate, the court found that the contract does not consider this, obviously, lesser misconduct was out of scope of gross misconduct, as per the terms of the contract.
If the contract did not include such a specific list, but merely described a more broad category of things that are considered gross misconduct, then the court might have ruled differently.
If you want to fire someone you follow procedure. In this case they didn't follow procedure. This is exactly the sort of situation HR already despairs over.
Writing new HR documents can't fix this, the same way that bolding the text "Do not press this button" in the instruction manual will not stop customers who don't read the manual and then press the button from doing so.
This also just obviously isn't gross misconduct. So now your rewritten procedures might get you sued which (checks notes) is the opposite of what you wanted.
have you read any of your company's policys recently?
at one company I could be technically fired for wearing a tracksuit to work.
at a FAANG, one that was very famous for upholding "freedom of expression", could fire me for questioning _in private_ the direction of anyone more senior than me.
Even if those policies are broad and all encompassing, you still need to demonstrate that they were applied correctly, proportionally and reasonably.
You also need to prove that the _policy_ is reasonable as well.
for example you _could_ have a policy where you cannot say anything negative. Good luck trying to prove that its legally reasonable (and that it was applied evenly)
In this case, all they had to do was issue a warning - as they promosed to do in the contract - instead of a summary firing for the first offense. If the behavior reoccurred they'd have been clear.
That's just going to lead to a lawsuit on the definition of "verbal abuse".
> A quick update to the procedures that calling someone a dickhead is a fireable offense is all that is needed.
Even specifically stating that might not work. It is not uncommon for such clauses to be struck through in court if they are deemed unfair and disproportionally punitive to the employee.
For a regular office drone otherwise in good standing, given the UK's cultural context, getting fired for calling your boss a "dickhead" is an extremely harsh punishment. An official warning, improvement plan, or some kind of training would be more appropriate.
> However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal.
It seems like the prior warning is the necessary part. The company obviously wants to write the rules such that the upper management team can make a one-off stupid comment to an employee without the employee suing to get them fired. Unfortunately, this means the upper management team can't rage-fire someone with no thought. (No doubt to show how in charge and powerful they are, which kind of proves the person using the term "dickhead" right.)
Nope, needs to be reasonable. If you're doing something unusual, then it needs to be telegraphed and backed up so that if you are taken to court you can give evidence as to why that clause was needed.
> have something generic like "verbal abuse"
you would need to have a policy that defines what verbal abuse is, and a way to record and catagorise it. its also a hard task to prove that one instance of verbal abuse where using "dickhead" as a term of endearment without any other connotations (sexual or otherwise) is gross misconduct, especially as the reply was "you can fuck off"
I think trying to fire someone based on that rather than addressing whatever conflict or friction lead to the “name calling” is an example of bad management.
Telling someone to fuck off could be verbal abuse, as fuck is a verb. But in this case it was not the purely figurative suggestion to fuck off was the britishism meaning to please leave with haste.
Saying "You're a dickhead" is verbal abuse. Saying "Dickhead" alone is nounal abuse.
Dickhead is really quite a mild insult.
They could use neutral a×hole, without sexual assault!
The topic is flexibility in hiring/ firing decisions and whether this flexibility is a good or bad thing overall. The empirical data between US and Europe - where the US has much higher wages and generally lower unemployment - suggests but does not prove this flexibility contributes to a better overall job market. In the US employers may be quicker to fire you, but they are also quicker to hire you.
Personally, as an employee I like the flexibility. If I do a good job, it’s rare to get fired, and I have more ability to jump ship if don’t like my current job.
Of course, you could argue that being allowed to fire people for pretty much anything other than discrimination makes it an uphill battle to prove it if you were fired illegally, but I'm not attempting to make a defense of the system, just explain my understanding of it.
The ruling holds that business process is not only legally binding, but trump's the terms for dismissal in the employment contract.
No, it doesn't. The business process was part of the legally binding contract.
> The hearing was told that under the terms of her contract, she could be fired for “the provocative use of insulting or abusive language”. However, this required she be given a prior warning. Only more serious breaches such as “threatening and intimidating language” would be gross misconduct and warrant summary dismissal.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ae81ed8bc29...
> Section 15 and 16 of the contract deal with disciplinary rules and unsatisfactory work and misconduct. Sections 18, 19 and 20 specify the respondent’s disciplinary procedures. Section 21 details the appeals procedure. The grievance procedure and grievance appeal procedure are laid out at section 22.
> At section 16 there is a list of the type of conduct or unsatisfactory work that may lead to dismissal after a prior warning has been given. There is a non exhaustive list of examples which include negligence, carelessness or general lack of capability in performance of the employees duties, bad timekeeping and the provocative use of insulting or abusive language.
You fire one person for calling their boss a dickhead, you’d better be sure you never allowed someone on the same contract to call their boss a dickhead without being fired.
Forgiving a fireable offense in one case doesn't mean every case must be forgiven.
1: https://nypost.com/2025/02/21/world-news/germans-cant-insult...
In another context, where "dickhead" was really out of place in the expected communication culture, and where it was really meant to be toxic rather than used to expressed an anguished sense of betrayed loyalty, "Mrs. Jones, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave the building. The personal effects from your desk can be collected from reception tomorrow" might be more tolerated.
That's pretty much how I read it.
If you upgrade it to "you two fucks" it still probably isnt.
"you two caaaaaaants", you would need to test if they are from glasgow or parts of london/essex
This creates an incentive to settle rather than waste the tribunal's time when you're fucked.
The nastiest thing I've seen is Putin, via a surrogate, files a case, court accepts despite the Russian origin, the case is bullshit and they'll lose, but when the court says "This case was a waste of our time, losers pay for everything" the surrogate's lawyers go oh, sorry, that Russian surrogate has vanished, conveniently just after paying our high fees.
I think reform to ensure that either the surrogate must pay for insurance or that the state of Russia is on the hook not an amazing vanishing surrogate is needed. Or we could just penalize the hired guns, bankrupt a few millionaire law partners ?
https://ratemymanager.fyi/
Insulting a C-level exec is tantamount to a professional suicide note.
I once told a whole bunch of senior execs "they'd totally bollocksed it up" (I have a photo of it somehere)
I guess it depends on the exec and your relationship with them
it depends on the courts though, and it also depends on the relationship between the two people. the more close they are the less likely the accusation of insult is going to stand. stories about such cases go both ways.
Most sane companies would probably not do that, but you never know (especially in Germany)
Someone in the UK calling their boss a dickhead, instead of a tosser, pillock, bellend, prat, knob or wanker? Unlikely.
So full lack of professionalism is still a ground for termination. Nothing to see here. Headline is clickbait.
Spontaneous burst of anger is a small incident. Multiple small incidents can still establish a pattern of lacking professionalism.
My hopes were nearly up for a second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I
EDIT: better version
Is someone being able to continue paying their bills and given an opportunity to find other jobs before they have to rely on safety nets unproductive?
Is holding companies to their own policies unproductive?
Whose perspective are you caring about here?
No, because in Blighty, that isn't a proper insult.
People would think you odd for using silly Americanisms and simply call you a festering cheesy bellend in return.
Not if the subtext is very obviously "...unlike those f**ing Jews/Muslims".
If there's no subtext, nobody will blink.
Also it is not really true that "free speech" and "freedom from consequences of your speech" are separate. Protecting free speech literally means protection from consequences, if there are no consequences then there's nothing to protect you from.
“Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care.”
That “for all I care” changes the whole meaning of the sentence.
There seems to be this bizarre belief that it's fine to engage in incitement to violence, harassment or stalking, as long as it's done on social media.
It's not. They would be illegal via phone calls and they're still illegal on X or Facebook.
Not without collecting damages.