In Mr D Andersen v Rheon Labs Ltd Mr Doug Andersen was employed by Rheon Labs as a Development Engineer and began work in October 2017.

In June 2020, Mr Andersen met with his line manager Mr Brown. During the meeting, Mr Andersen indicated he felt he was stagnating and wanted progression. Mr Brown spoke to Mr Andersen regarding what Mr Brown considered to be weaknesses in Mr Andersen’s behaviour, noting in particular the “universal negative feedback from the Senior Management Team about his behaviour”. Mr Brown indicated he was willing to support Mr Andersen if he was ready to change his behaviours, and asked Mr Andersen to take the rest of the day and the following day off to reflect.

In January 2021 a meeting took place between Mr Andersen, Mr Brown and Ms Elizabeth Coles (Rheon’s People & Culture Manager) to discuss Mr Andersen’s ongoing behavioural weaknesses and poor attitude at work. During that meeting, Mr Andersen was offered the opportunity to work with a mentor, and was told he needed to work on emotion management, interpersonal communication and people management skills. Mr Andersen was also given a formal warning for a pattern of behaviour, being a continuation of the behaviours called out in the feedback in the course of 2020, including inappropriate tone in an email exchange with another senior member of the team.

On the afternoon of Friday 5 March 2021 an incident took place on a company Zoom meeting. Mr Andersen was observed to be drinking beer on the call and was challenged by Mr Brown. Mr Andersen responded along the lines of “deal with it”.

Mr Andersen demonstrated further inappropriate behaviour in the meeting, specifically not contributing on matters he would be expected to contribute on, being cynical with laughter and, ultimately, turning off his camera.

Mr Andersen was subsequently invited to a disciplinary meeting and issued with a final written warning. Mr Andersen was also warned for “using company assets (workshop) for personal use without permission” and “repeated poor housekeeping in the workshop resulting in complaints from peers”.

Also in March 2021, Mr Brown confirmed to Mr Andersen that he was to act as mentor/buddy to a University student on an industry placement, Mr Brown received feedback from two colleagues expressing concern voiced to them about Mr Andersen’s feedback to him about his internship performance.

On the same day, another colleague, reported Mr Andersen’s behaviour as “rude and negative”, and that she had been left on one occasion “feeling unsupported”.

Mr Andersen was suspended and invited to a disciplinary hearing. Mr Brown found that Mr Andersen’s behaviour was inappropriate and fell well below the standards of conduct expected from him, especially in circumstances where Rheon had implemented various steps through mentoring and the Performance Improvement Plan to help Mr Andersen understand his behaviour and what is required of him. He expressly considered a sanction short of dismissal but taking account of the history and the impact of the behaviour on the individuals concerned and on Rheon generally, decided that dismissal with notice was the appropriate sanction.

Mr Andersen lodged a claim for unfair dismissal, but the employment judge ruled against him. Instead, he has been ordered to pay almost £10,000 to cover the company’s legal bills for what was described as a ‘vexatious’ claim.