Trespassing Manager Called “Invasive” for Pushing Fingers Through Employee’s Letterbox by Tribunal

In Mr Mark Braithwaite v Refresco Drinks UK Ltd, a controls engineer has been awarded a £24,000 unfair dismissal payout after his trespassing manager turned up at his house to retrieve a work laptop, despite the fact he was caring for his seriously unwell daughter. The Employment Tribunal said the manager’s actions were “invasive” and caused the engineer’s heated outburst, ultimately leading to his dismissal.

Read on as we discuss the facts of the case and the reasons behind the Tribunal’s judgment. We then examine key questions regarding a claim for unfair dismissal and what employees need to know.

If your dismissal was unfair, contact Redmans Solicitors immediately. As employment law specialists, we can answer your queries and guide those eligible through the legal process.

To begin your journey with us today, simply:

The Facts in Mr Mark Braithwaite v Refresco Drinks UK Ltd

Background to Claim Involving Trespassing Manager

Mr Mark Braithwaite (“the Claimant”) worked as a controls engineer for Refresco Drinks UK Ltd (“the Respondent”). In February 2022, he requested to work from home to support his daughter with her serious mental health condition. A temporary arrangement was subsequently agreed, where he could work remotely on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The Claimant was the primary user of the only “PG” laptop. It held the sole licence to fix bugs and write code for the Respondent’s Milton Keynes factory’s automated system. When the Claimant worked from home, he took the laptop with him to complete his work. For a while, this created no issues, and the Respondent was aware of what he was doing.

Issues with PG Laptop Arise

Issues arose on 14 June when Mr Chris Simons, a colleague who’d been temporarily seconded to work with the Claimant, messaged about the laptop’s whereabouts. Mr Simons needed the laptop to handle a production line issue. The Claimant responded, confirming he was using it at home, but explained the “KHS guy,” an agency software engineer, could resolve the matter without the laptop.

In the meantime, Mr Gavin Clarke, the Claimant’s line manager, messaged, “Hi Mark, what time do you think you will be able to bring the laptop in as we will need it before 12.” The Employment Tribunal learned that, during this correspondence, Mr Simons and Mr Clarke didn’t communicate their separate conversations with the Claimant. While Mr Simons was trying to resolve the production line issue without impressing an urgency on the Claimant to return the laptop, Mr Clarke was.

Since the Claimant’s daughter was severely unwell, he couldn’t attend the office on such short notice. Consequently, he didn’t reply to Mr Clarke’s message and instead looked to resolve the issue with Mr Simons.

However, the issue remained unresolved, prompting Mr Clarke to re-request that the laptop be returned. He declared that the laptop shouldn’t be at the Claimant’s house since it was the Respondent’s property and said he would “have to control the issuing of the laptop” going forward to prevent a reoccurrence. When the Claimant responded, “Let’s have the conversation about the laptop tomorrow…” Mr Clarke replied, “This has now gone above my head.”

Trespassing Manager Goes to Claimant’s House for Laptop

At 2:15 pm on 14 June, HR Business Partner Ms Sarah Hudson authorised a home visit to undertake a welfare check on the Claimant. This was despite the Claimant sending his last message to Mr Clarke under 20 minutes earlier at 1.57 pm. The home visit angered the Claimant and caused a “heat of the moment” exchange.

After Mr Clarke and another colleague, Mr Luke Beckingham, knocked on the Claimant’s door, he opened it. He told them to go away before closing his door. However, following advice from the Respondent to persevere with their attempts, Mr Beckingham put his fingers through the letterbox, shouting that they were only there to collect the laptop. During proceedings, the Tribunal ruled this action “was invasive and amounted to a trespass on the Claimant’s property.”

Unfortunately, this incident caused the Claimant to have a “red mist” moment. In his words, he told the Tribunal, “I lost my temper and told them to f**k off and said they didn’t need the f**king laptop.” He subsequently opened the door, showing Mr Clarke and Mr Beckingham how unwell his daughter was, before shutting it again. The heated exchange then continued for a little while longer, but the Claimant eventually handed over the laptop.

Claimant Dismissed After Swearing at Trespassing Manager

On 15 June, the day after the trespassing manager visited the Claimant’s house, the Claimant was invited to an investigation meeting. He was only given 15 minutes’ notice before the meeting was due to take place. Despite this, he didn’t refuse to attend and simply requested a copy of the “home visit policy” before it began. However, the Respondent explained that no such policy existed. Then, citing a failure to comply with a reasonable request and previous unacceptable behaviour, the Claimant was suspended. 

An investigation meeting then occurred on 28 June. At such time, questions were put to the Claimant regarding the incidents that took place on 14 and 15 June. However, the invitation to the meeting only outlined an allegation regarding the Claimant’s refusal to attend the previous meeting. This meant he had no time to prepare to defend himself about what occurred at his house.

A disciplinary meeting was subsequently set for 21 July. However, only two days before this meeting was due to happen did he learn of the additional allegations against him. After requesting a postponement, he was informed that he was also being accused of:

  1. Refusal to return the work laptop
  2. Verbal aggression towards his colleagues

On 25 July, the Claimant raised three grievances, which he was told would be addressed in the disciplinary hearing the following day. Yet, following the hearing on 26 July, the Claimant was instantly dismissed for gross misconduct regarding the three allegations. After an unsuccessful appeal, he initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings, claiming, among other things, that his dismissal was unfair.

Trespassing Manager Case: The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following proceedings, the Employment Tribunal turned to unfair dismissal law. It established that, when assessing the associated claim, it had to determine whether:

  1. The Claimant was dismissed
  2. The Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant had committed misconduct
  3. Reasonable action was taken in all circumstances

On the first point, the Tribunal quickly established that the Claimant had been dismissed. As such, it turned to the question of whether the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant was guilty of misconduct. In this case, said misconduct related to the alleged refusal to attend the investigation meeting, refusal to return the work laptop, and verbal aggression toward the trespassing manager.

Was There a Genuine Belief?

Concerning the investigation assertion, the Tribunal found that the Claimant never refused to attend. He originally asked for the “home visit policy” before attending but later said he would attend without it. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that a genuine belief, that he was refusing the request, couldn’t possibly have been held.

The Tribunal then considered whether the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant had refused to return the laptop. While it found that such a belief could have stemmed from the Claimant’s reluctance to communicate with Mr Clarke, it determined the evidence only supported a conclusion that he’d delayed returning the laptop rather than outright refusing. This was because the Claimant continued to correspond with Mr Simons in an effort to resolve the issue and explained that the laptop wasn’t needed.

Finally, the Tribunal questioned whether a genuine belief was held regarding the alleged verbal aggression. Before doing so, however, it noted that the Respondent’s reasoning for the home visit lacked credibility.

While the Respondent asserted the visit was authorised to undertake a welfare check, the Tribunal ruled this couldn’t have been the case. This was because the Claimant had corresponded with Mr Clarke just less than 20 minutes before the authorisation. Although the Respondent suspected the laptop was being used for unauthorised purposes, the Tribunal believed the visit was solely to retrieve it.

With this in mind, the Tribunal then considered the Respondent’s actual belief. It noted that while the Claimant did swear, this occurred only after Mr Clarke and Mr Beckingham trespassed on his property. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that there was a genuine belief regarding the Claimant’s verbal aggression, but this was qualified by the understanding that he’d been provoked by the trespassing manager.

Unfair Dismissal Confirmed

The Tribunal then considered whether the Respondent had acted reasonably in all circumstances. It found that the Claimant had not refused to attend the investigation meeting, had only delayed returning the laptop by a few hours, and had sworn at the trespassing manager only after he and a colleague intruded on his property. Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not acted reasonably.

Moreover, the Respondent failed to present all allegations from the outset, meaning the investigation was not conducted fairly. This was further compounded by the Tribunal’s determination that the Respondent had formed pre-determined beliefs before the investigation had even concluded.

With no fair reason for dismissal and multiple procedural failings, the Tribunal ruled in the Claimant’s favour. As a result, he was awarded £24,720.70 in an unfair dismissal payout.

When Can I Claim Unfair Dismissal?

Unfair dismissal occurs when an employee is sacked, and their employer doesn’t have a fair reason to justify dismissal or fails to follow a fair procedure. In such circumstances, those eligible can claim to an Employment Tribunal.

Under UK unfair dismissal law, to be eligible, individuals must:

  • Be legally classified as an employee; and
  • Have two years of qualifying experience or
  • Be claiming automatic unfair dismissal

When making a claim, those eligible must also adhere to strict time limits. Learn more about unfair dismissal in our comprehensive guide.

How to Report Unfair Dismissal

If someone believes their dismissal was unfair, they should begin by attempting to resolve the matter internally. This isn’t always possible, but if it is, it could avoid the need for stressful court action. To report the matter this way, the individual could speak with their manager or raise a formal grievance.

However, if internal resolutions fail, like in the case involving the trespassing manager, it may be time to consider external solutions. Before going to court, the individual would need to undertake Acas early conciliation, but if this doesn’t work, it may be time to initiate Employment Tribunal proceedings.

How to Prove Unfair Dismissal

Regardless of the path taken to resolve the matter, if an individual has been dismissed unfairly, it’s wise they have evidence. Not only will this increase the chance of the issue being taken seriously, but it will make a successful outcome more likely.

The individual would first need to prove they were an employee before showing they were dismissed for an unfair reason or without their employer following a fair process. To do so, they could use evidence like their employment contract, emails, or meeting records.

In any event, if an individual has endured such treatment, it’s wise to consult an unfair dismissal solicitor to ensure they fully understand their legal rights. Redmans Solicitors can offer such guidance, and after a quick chat, we can discuss how you could proceed.

To learn more: