Part-Time Worker Awarded £24K After She Was Sacked on Her Day Off

In Ms Joanne Neill v Dermalogica UK Ltd, a facilities consultant has been awarded nearly £25,000 after being effectively sacked on her day off, during a surprise Teams meeting titled “Catch Up.” The employment tribunal found that her employer failed to implement reasonable adjustments for her mental health condition and unfairly selected her for redundancy based on her part-time status.

Below, we examine the facts of the case and the decision the employment tribunal came to. We then discuss what others can do if they’re fired from the job on their day off.

If you believe you have been unfairly dismissed from a job or have any associated questions, please reach out. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and after a quick chat, we can provide expert advice. 

To begin, simply:

The Facts in Ms Joanne Neill v Dermalogica UK Ltd

Background

Ms Joanne Neill (“the Claimant”) began working for Dermalogica UK Ltd (“the Respondent”) in 1995. It still employed her as a facilities consultant at the time of the hearing, working part-time, two days a week.

In January 2022, the Claimant’s mental health began to deteriorate. She suffered from severe depressive disorder, panic attacks and anxiety. In June, she contemplated suicide and had to stay with her sister, as she felt unsafe on her own.

Her manager, Mr Ian White, and HR were well aware of her condition, as she disclosed her difficulties as soon as they arose. Many of her colleagues were also in the know, as she often looked “visibly upset” at work and broke down in tears on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, the Claimant was reluctant to take time off, as she was limited to two days per year of sick pay entitlement, which she couldn’t afford as a single parent.

Word Spreads Claimant was Sacked on Her Day Off

On 16 November, the Claimant received a late invitation to a Microsoft Teams meeting labelled “Catch Up”. She received no indication of the meeting’s purpose, which was scheduled for the following day, one of her days off.

When the meeting came about, the Claimant was blindsided by Mr White and Ms Sarah Beardsworth, the head of HR. To her shock, she was informed she’d been selected for redundancy as part of a “global directive to reduce headcount.” Her department was required to lose “half a head,” and since she was a part-time employee, she was chosen.

Despite the fact that no formal consultation or dismissal process had been completed, news of the decision quickly spread throughout the office, creating a perception that she was sacked on her day off. This, combined with the decision itself, significantly impacted the Claimant, sending her mental state backwards. She was signed off sick shortly after, and didn’t return for quite some time.

Breakdown in Trust Following Redundancy Process and Grievance Proceedings

Following the 17 November meeting, the Claimant participated in a redundancy consultation process. She quickly believed this was a “sham”, though, and refused to participate any further. She then raised a formal grievance, citing disability and part-time worker discrimination on 6 December.

Upon receipt of her grievance, the Respondent put her redundancy on hold. It investigated her complaint and provided a response on 30 January 2023. While the Respondent accepted she’d been unfairly selected due to her part-time status, it didn’t believe she’d faced disability discrimination.

On 6 February, the Claimant appealed this decision, claiming her job was “untenable,” and referenced how colleagues had been told she was sacked on her day off before any consultation had taken place. A second redundancy process then commenced on 13 February, which the Claimant again believed to be a sham. Like previously, this was put on hold while her appeal was ongoing, but an outcome to her appeal was never given.

By 5 September, the Claimant learned that a colleague had resigned, meaning her job was no longer at risk. Unfortunately, up until this point, she’d been left in limbo, believing she was going to be dismissed from work. In her eyes, it was a case of when, not if.

When the Respondent requested that she return to work in 2024, the Claimant had “lost trust and confidence in them”. As a result, and feeling aggrieved by how she’d been treated, she pursued claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect sex discrimination, and part-time worker discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Sacked on Her Day Off: Employer Failed in Supporting Disabled Employee

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal quickly established that the Claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010. This was because her severe depressive disorder, anxiety, and panic attacks had a substantial and long-term impact on her ability to carry out normal, daily activities. She experienced significant difficulties with basic functions such as eating, sleeping, and concentrating.

As a result, the tribunal turned to her failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. It explained how the Respondent had provisions, criteria, or practices (PCPs) which put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. These included:

  • Providing the Claimant with insufficient notice to attend the “Catch Up” meeting
  • Offering little context about the meeting’s purpose, while supplying a misleading title
  • Arranging the meeting not only via Teams, but on the Claimant’s day off

The tribunal stated that the Respondent’s actions worsened the Claimant’s mental health, an outcome that could and should have been avoided. It added that reasonable adjustments, such as providing proper notice or scheduling an in-office meeting when she was at work, could have mitigated this impact. Since the Respondent failed to implement such steps, the tribunal upheld this claim.

Discriminatory Redundancy Selection and Compensation Ruling

Moving on, the tribunal then considered her claim of indirect sex discrimination. This concerned both the first and second redundancy process. Looking at the initial redundancy process first, the tribunal pointed out the Respondent’s wording when the Claimant was effectively sacked on her day off. The Respondent had said, “…the global directive is to reduce our headcount by 0.5, and so…your role has been selected for redundancy.”

The tribunal interpreted this to mean that the Claimant had been selected because her role was part-time. Since women are generally more likely to work part-time roles than men, this puts women at a disadvantage. The tribunal ruled this PCP wasn’t a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and, thus, amounted to indirect sex discrimination.

However, because the second redundancy process included both full-time and part-time employees, the tribunal found that the same discriminatory reasoning didn’t apply. In this instance, it concluded that no unlawful discrimination had occurred.

Finally, the tribunal briefly analysed the claim of part-time worker discrimination. Since the Claimant was chosen for redundancy solely because of her part-time status, the tribunal stated, “the treatment was not justified on objective grounds,” and quickly upheld this claim.

Following the successful ruling, the tribunal awarded her £24,042.08. This comprised compensation for injury to feelings and a missed bonus payment.

What Are Your Rights If You’re Sacked on Your Day Off?

Unfortunately, Ms Joanne Neill, who was effectively sacked on her day off, won’t be alone. Others will have likely faced something similar, where they’ve been caught off guard with a dismissal outside of their working hours.

Fortunately, UK employment law protects against such circumstances. Employees with at least two years of service are legally entitled not to be unfairly dismissed. This means their employer must have a valid reason for dismissal, such as redundancy or misconduct, and follow a fair and transparent process, including undertaking a proper consultation and providing the correct notice.

What’s more, when an employer decides someone is to be dismissed from work, this decision mustn’t be discriminatory. Unlike unfair dismissal, claims of discrimination don’t have any service length requirements. Discrimination arises when the decision is based on one’s protected characteristics, which include disability, sex, or race.

If an individual is sacked on their day off, and one or more of the above rights are breached, it could give rise to a claim. Individuals in such circumstances should act fast and first consider internal solutions. This could include having an informal chat with HR or raising a formal grievance.

Should issues persist, external measures could then be pursued. ACAS early conciliation is typically a good starting point as it offers independent free advice, and is required before a claim can be brought. However, if all else fails, employment tribunal proceedings can be initiated, provided specific eligibility criteria are satisfied and strict time limits are adhered to.

Get Help with Redmans

If you have any queries after reading about how Ms Neill was sacked on her day off, or you, yourself, have been dismissed from a job, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law experts, we can provide the answers you’re looking for and discuss your possible next steps.

All you have to do to get started is: