Calling Boss a “Dickhead” Wasn’t Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal, says Tribunal

Published : September 10, 2025

In Ms Kerrie Herbert v Main Group Services Ltd, an office manager has been awarded nearly £30,000 in her unfair dismissal claim. This comes despite calling her boss a “dickhead” during a heated exchange, which the employment tribunal ruled didn’t constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal.

The conflict led to a disciplinary investigation, labelled a “sham” by Ms Herbert, before she was dismissed for gross misconduct. However, she maintains that she had already been dismissed during the argument, prompting her legal action.

Below, we examine the case facts, the tribunal’s judgment, and the relevant UK law. If you’ve faced similar treatment and believe your rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors immediately. As employment specialists, our team can provide the answers you’re looking for and discuss how you could proceed.

It only takes a moment to begin your journey with us, simply:

The Facts in Ms Kerrie Herbert v Main Group Services Ltd

Grounds for Dismissal at Work Explained

Ms Kerrie Herbert (“the Claimant”) worked as office manager for Main Group Services Ltd (“the Respondent”) from 28 October 2018. She reported to Mr Thomas Swannell, Operations Manager, and Mrs Anna Swannell, Managing Director. Mr and Mrs Swannell are her in-laws, with Mrs Swannell being her husband’s sister.

Issues arose on 20 May 2022, when the Claimant discovered documentation in an office drawer concerning the cost of her employment. She became visibly angry and upset, as she believed her employment may be terminated, prompting a meeting with Mr Swannell at around 4:30 pm.

During the meeting, Mr Swannell discussed concerns regarding her management and performance. However, the Claimant believed many of the issues fell outside her role, and he was simply “unable to take responsibility or admit wrongdoing.”

As the discussion became “very heated,” Mr Swannell’s demeanour allegedly turned “aggressive.” He refused to consider the Claimant’s point of view, upsetting her and bringing her to tears. Emphasising her commitment to the Respondent, she said, “If it was anyone else in this position, they would have walked years ago due to the goings on in the office, but it is only because of you two dickheads [Mr and Mrs Swannell] that I stayed.”

According to the Claimant, this language was intended as a joke and was in line with how they usually communicated. Nonetheless, Mr Swannell responded, “Don’t call me a f*cking dickhead or my wife.” The Claimant attempted to reason with him, but to no avail, as he then said, “That’s it, you’re sacked, pack your kit and f*ck off.” When she asked to confirm whether he’d just ended her employment, Mr Swannell replied, “Yes, I have now f*ck off.”

Claim Brought After Being Sacked for “Gross Misconduct”

Following the incident, the Claimant emailed the Respondent, detailing her version of events. She chased for a response, and on 1 June, she received a letter entitled “Suspension From Work.”

The Claimant, however, denied that she’d been suspended, referencing her dismissal on 20 May, as confirmed by Mr Swannell. While the Respondent subsequently attempted to undertake a disciplinary investigation process, she believed it was a “sham,” and a “crude attempt to retrospectively alter the sequence of events.”

The Respondent paid the Claimant her June salary on 1 July, but she returned it, maintaining that she had already been dismissed. For the same reason, she didn’t appeal the Respondent’s final decision on the disciplinary process, which stated that she was guilty of gross misconduct. Instead, she initiated Acas early conciliation on 2 June before making an unfair dismissal claim on 17 August.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Before the employment tribunal could determine whether the grounds for dismissal were reasonable, it had to establish when the dismissal took place. The Respondent maintained that the Claimant hadn’t been sacked during the heated exchange, but rather suspended, as confirmed in its subsequent letter.

However, after comparing its inconsistent testimonies with her account, the tribunal favoured the Claimant’s version of events, ruling that she was dismissed on 20 May 2022. The tribunal noted that the subsequent investigation and disciplinary process were carried out simply to demonstrate a fair procedure.

With this in mind, the tribunal turned to the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. It highlighted how the Respondent relied upon misconduct and capability in its letter of dismissal, despite never raising such issues before 20 May. 

The tribunal ruled this justification didn’t hold up, instead believing that the dismissal was a spur-of-the-moment decision, triggered by the Claimant’s comments about her in-laws. Therefore, her conduct during the meeting was the actual reason she was sacked. Since conduct can potentially be a fair reason for dismissal, it was then up to the tribunal to determine whether this was the case here.

When the Claimant was dismissed during the confrontation, no disciplinary procedure had taken place, nor had she received any prior warnings. Given that the company’s disciplinary policy hadn’t been adhered to, the tribunal therefore rendered her dismissal procedurally unfair.

Yet, even if a proper procedure had been followed, the tribunal still found the dismissal to be unfair. Yes, the Claimant’s comment was inappropriate, but it was a one-off remark during a heated exchange. She had displayed no such behaviour previously, and her conduct wasn’t found to constitute gross misconduct. As a result, sufficient grounds for dismissal weren’t found, and the tribunal upheld her claim, awarding her £29,130.31 in compensation.

What are the Five Fair Reasons for Dismissal in the UK?

Before an employer sacks an employee, it must ensure that it has adequate grounds for dismissal. If it doesn’t, much like in cases involving a flawed procedure, the dismissal will be deemed unfair, exposing the employer to potential legal liability.

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, there are five potentially fair reasons for dismissal. These include:

  1. Capability: Where an employee cannot perform their job properly due to a lack of skill, ability, health, or necessary qualifications. Before deciding on dismissal, the employer must take reasonable steps to support the individual and comply with its legal obligations.
  2. Conduct: Where an employee’s behaviour is deemed unacceptable. This could include a series of minor offences, like disobeying superiors or consistent poor attendance, or a significant incident constituting gross misconduct, such as stealing.
  3. Redundancy: Where an employee’s role is no longer required due to business needs, restructuring, or reduced demand. Redundancies must follow a legally compliant process and cannot be used to remove someone from their position before re-hiring.
  4. Statutory Illegality: Where continuing someone’s employment would break the law. This may arise if, for example, a taxi driver loses their driving licence.
  5. Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR): SOSR acts as a “catch-all” for reasons significant enough to justify dismissal but not covered by the other four. Examples could include reputational damage caused by an employee’s viral incident that risks harming the business. As each case is fact-specific, employment tribunals assess them individually, so employers must exercise caution.

Can I be Sacked Without Warning?

The only time an employer generally doesn’t have to provide a warning is when an employee is dismissed for gross misconduct. Outside of this, employers must provide appropriate warnings and give employees a chance to respond before considering dismissal.

That said, a fair dismissal procedure must still be followed, regardless of whether a warning is required. If an employer fails to follow a fair process, the dismissal could be deemed unfair, even if the grounds for dismissal are valid.

Is it Worth Appealing a Dismissal at Work?

If an employee has been dismissed and believes the decision was unfair, several steps are available to seek a remedy. First, they can appeal internally. Resolving the issue at this stage can avoid the stress, time, and costs of formal legal action. Additionally, if an employee brings a claim without first appealing, an employment tribunal may reduce any compensation awarded.

However, if the employee doesn’t wish to be reinstated, an appeal may not be the best option. A successful appeal could result in reinstatement, which would usually prevent the employee from pursuing an unfair dismissal claim. In such cases, raising a formal grievance may be a more suitable route.

If internal remedies fail to achieve a satisfactory outcome, though, the next step is usually Acas early conciliation. This process is free, impartial, and can help resolve disputes without going to an employment tribunal. It’s also generally required before a claim can be brought and pauses the time limit for making a claim, so it’s typically wise to start this process in parallel with an appeal.

If all else fails, the final step is to submit a claim to an employment tribunal. Claims must meet strict eligibility criteria and comply with time limits, but if successful, compensation can be awarded.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve been sacked for gross misconduct or any other reason and believe it was unfair, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists and here to help. Following a brief consultation, our team of employment experts can analyse your circumstances and assess your eligibility to claim compensation.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.