JPP Law Blog
Sainsbury’s entitled to dismiss employee for gross misconduct
Sainsbury's was entitled to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct after he failed to carry out key company policy concerning staff engagement.
That was the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of an employee who had worked for the company for 26 years. At the time of his dismissal he was a regional operations manager, responsible for 20 stores.
The company had a key policy called Talkback, designed to ensure staff motivation and engagement. As part of the Talkback procedure, staff in all locations gave information in confidence about their working environment.
A human resources manager sent an email to the employee's store managers encouraging them to focus on getting their "most enthusiastic colleagues to fill in the survey". This would potentially undermine the Talkback survey results.
When the employee became aware of the email he told the HR manager to clarify what he meant with store managers. The HR manager failed to do so, and the employee did not check whether he had done so. When he became aware that the HR manager had failed to follow his instructions, he took no further action.
Sainsbury's dismissed him for gross misconduct on the basis that he had failed to take adequate steps to remedy the manipulation of the survey scores. The judge at the Employment Tribunal concluded that the employee had been in serious dereliction of his duty to the company, given his obligation to ensure that the Talkback procedure was properly carried out.
The Court of Appeal has now upheld that decision. It held that the employee's failure constituted gross misconduct because it had the effect of undermining the trust and confidence in the employment relationship.
Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article. To find out more about JPP's employment law services please visit employment law.
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (108)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (119)
- Intellectual Property (3)
- Start-ups (25)
- Videos (8)
- 2022 May (1)
- 2022 April (3)
- 2022 March (2)
- 2022 February (2)
- 2022 January (2)
- 2021 December (1)
- 2021 November (1)
- 2021 October (1)
- 2021 September (1)
- 2021 August (1)
- 2021 July (1)
- 2021 May (1)
- 2021 April (1)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)