Coca-Cola’s Dismissal Deemed Unfair: Tribunal Sides With Employee Battling Mental Health Issues

In Michael Whyte v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Great Britain Limited, a merchandiser won his unfair dismissal claim. This was after he was dismissed for making mistakes while battling mental health issues. The tribunal determined that the errors didn’t amount to gross misconduct, and the dismissal procedure was unfair.

Read on as we examine what happened in Michael Whyte’s case and the tribunal’s judgment. We also assess whether bad mental health can lead to dismissal and what employees should do if their employment rights are breached.

Do you have an employment issue and feel overwhelmed or are unsure how to proceed? The law can be complex, and getting specialist legal advice can put your mind at ease. Redmans Solicitors are employment law experts and can advise on your possible next steps, providing you the clarity to seek justice.

So, if you would like to find out more about how we can help you, please:

The Facts in Michael Whyte v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Great Britain Limited

Michael Whyte (“The Claimant”) began working as a sales representative for Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Great Britain Limited (“The Respondent”) on 1 February 2020. In addition, he was pursuing a business management degree. Unfortunately, balancing work with study became too challenging and so he eventually moved into a less demanding merchandiser role.

When the claimant changed roles in early 2023, he only received one week of training. This differed from the standard procedure, where new starters typically receive six weeks. He also didn’t receive a new contract or information concerning the incentive/bonus scheme for merchandisers.

Claimant Starts Battling Mental Health Issues Following Complaint

As a merchandiser, the claimant attended supermarkets, ensuring the respondent’s products were “available, priced correctly and properly displayed”. However, in November 2023, his line manager, Ms Emily Ogilvie, received a complaint about him. She learned he’d allegedly distracted a supermarket employee by talking to them.

Consequently, on 6 November, Ms Ogilvie held a meeting with the claimant. She told him she’d received a complaint “around unwanted attention towards a female colleague in Tesco Extra”. While the claimant acknowledged being told by a store manager not to distract their employees, he apologised, claiming he was unaware of the impact his conduct was having.

When the meeting concluded, Ms Ogilvie stated, “You need to be aware of the seriousness of this allegation.” While she didn’t take the matter further, she told the claimant to stop talking to the female employee and issued him with counselling.

Although the claimant wasn’t directly accused of sexual harassment, language like “unwanted attention towards a female colleague” made him feel as though he had. He disclosed such feelings during a work therapy session on 7 November and rated his overall well-being very poorly. Since he was battling mental health, his clinician advised him to swap stores in an attempt to avoid the distress.

Respondent Reviews Claimant’s Performance

On 8 November, Ms Ogilvie conducted a customer review of the stores the claimant had visited that day. This was due to the complaint she had discussed with him and previous concerns regarding his capability. 

The following day, Ms Ogilvie met with the claimant to discuss her findings. She mentioned several instances where he’d made mistakes with stock and display, such as ticking a product as “available” when, in fact, it wasn’t. The claimant reasoned that his bad mental health, brought on by the previous meeting, had caused the errors, and the meeting concluded.

Claimant Dismissed Despite Battling Mental Health Issues

A few weeks later, on 22 November, the claimant was invited to a formal meeting. The correspondence outlined three allegations against him: dishonesty, negligent performance, and poor time management. It also stated that it may warrant dismissal if he was found guilty of gross misconduct. 

Before the meeting though, the claimant received an email from a manager at one of the stores he’d visited when Ms Ogilvie conducted her review. The manager admitted the claimant had “attended on a really bad day” due to staff shortages but asserted that they informed Ms Ogilvie about his really hard work.

During a formal meeting on 1 December, the claimant reiterated that his mistakes arose due to battling mental health issues. He explained he was rocked by the complaint and had been in constant communication with the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP). 

To that, the respondent queried why he hadn’t brought the matter to his line manager’s attention. While they understood such issues could affect his performance, they stated he could have avoided the situation entirely by speaking to them. Furthermore, they didn’t feel this alone was enough to justify his actions.

The respondent reinforced this view at the end of the meeting when they explained how they “could understand that it would be upsetting, but felt the onus was on him to inform his line manager that he was not fit for work.” Consequently, they provided the claimant with their decision to dismiss him.

Unfair Dismissal Claim Brought

The claimant decided to appeal his dismissal, and a hearing eventually took place on 30 January 2024. During the hearing, the claimant was asked about his bad mental health and his failure to disclose it. The respondent stated that telling them about it after his mistakes could be seen as an excuse. 

The respondent also told the employment tribunal that going to the EAP beforehand only showed the claimant required “little support”, not enough in their eyes to make the “basic” mistakes he did. As a result, they dismissed his appeal. Following his lack of success, the claimant decided to go through ACAS early conciliation before initiating employment tribunal proceedings on 28 April, claiming unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

When proceedings concluded, the employment tribunal accepted the allegations presented by the respondent as the primary reasons for the claimant’s dismissal. This was despite their belief that the complaint regarding “unwanted attention” and previous concerns may have influenced the decision. They also accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct.

That said, while they acknowledged the respondent had undertaken a reasonable investigation and the claimant had made some mistakes, the tribunal felt there was nothing to prove that he had acted dishonestly. Furthermore, they believed the respondent had considered factors like the “unwanted attention” complaint or previous concerns about his performance, which they deemed unfair.

There was evidence the claimant was battling mental health via EAP documentation, and even with the mistakes found in the customer review, these only amounted to minor issues on one day. The tribunal stated, “It is very difficult to see how these findings amounted to ‘gross misconduct’.” This was especially true, given he’d only received one week of training rather than the usual six.

With this in mind, gross misconduct wasn’t found, and the dismissal procedure was deemed unfair. The tribunal consequently ruled the claimant had been substantively and procedurally unfairly dismissed.

This wasn’t the end, however. Although the tribunal understood the claimant was battling mental health issues, his conduct contributed to his dismissal. As such, they ruled that his compensatory award would be reduced by 10% to account for the minor mistakes he made that were picked up in the customer review. A remedy hearing will now follow to determine his compensation.

Can I Lose My Job Because of Poor Mental Health?

Employees can lose their jobs when battling mental health, but strict legal processes must be followed. Employers cannot dismiss someone solely for having bad mental health.

What Laws Protect Mental Health in the Workplace?

Under the Equality Act 2010, mental health issues classified as disabilities (lasting or expected to last 12 months and substantially affecting daily activities) are protected. Employers must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate these conditions. If dismissal occurs without these steps, it could be considered unfair or discriminatory.

Can I Take Time Off for Mental Health?

Employees struggling can and should take time off when battling mental health. Legally, such leave is treated the same as physical illness, and employees are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for up to 28 weeks if they meet specific eligibility criteria. Long-term absences also require employers to explore all reasonable options, such as workload adjustments or alternate roles, before considering dismissal.

Furthermore, the UK could join other countries in the future by introducing the “right to disconnect”. With it, employees would gain the legal right to disengage from work-related communications outside agreed working hours. This proposal seeks to reduce burnout and stress, creating a healthier boundary between work and personal life.

What to Do if You’re Denied Your Rights

Should an employee battling mental health be denied reasonable adjustments they’re entitled to or face discrimination, there are several measures they can take to rectify the matter.

First off, the employee can informally discuss the issue with their employer or raise a formal grievance. Which route to take will depend on the severity of the situation. If the matter is resolved at this stage, the stresses, costs and time involved in court action will be avoided.

However, it may be time to seek help elsewhere if the matter remains unresolved. ACAS early conciliation is a good starting point as they offer free, independent legal assistance, and this step is required before going to court. If all else fails, the employee can then initiate employment tribunal proceedings and, if successful, may be awarded compensation.

Get Help with Redmans

If you have any employment queries or believe your rights have been violated, please contact Redmans Solicitors now. As experts in the sector, we can provide specialist advice and help you get the best possible resolution. In most cases, issues will be settled outside of court; however, if yours proceeds to a tribunal, we can assist you through the legal process.

So, to learn how we can help you today: