In the case of Mr MS v Cambridge Country Club Ltd a golfer was sacked from a country club after being wrongly accused of telling a junior female colleague ‘you smell so good I could lick you all over’.
Mr MS was fired from his job at the exclusive club after he was alleged to have made ‘unwanted advances of a sexual nature’ to front-of-house staff Ms AC.
He was invited to a disciplinary hearing where he also faced allegations that he messaged Ms AC inappropriately at 11pm and joked that a colleague looked like Jimmy Savile.
Now, a tribunal has ruled he was sacked unfairly after finding he did not actually make the ‘lick you’ comment or the remark about sex predator Savile.
Mr MS is in line to receive compensation from Cambridge Country Club after suing them for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
However, it will be reduced as the tribunal ruled he acted inappropriately by messaging Ms AC late at night asking her ‘how do you manage to look so good everyday?’
Employment Judge Kerrie Hunt said: ‘I conclude that the club did not carry out a reasonable and sufficient investigation.
‘The allegations were categorised as gross misconduct with serious consequences for Mr MS.
‘There were some basic yet fundamental details of the allegations against Mr MS that [Mr M] did not make enquiries about or further investigate the details, including the time and date and potential witnesses of the ‘lick you’ comment.
‘I consider that the decision to dismiss was not a fair sanction within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable the employer would take.’
The judge ruled that Mr MS did message Ms AC which was inappropriate.
‘I find that his explanation that he meant no innuendo and was referencing that she was well turned out and smart at work did not mitigate or excuse his conduct in sending a private message late at night.
‘I further find that his inability or unwillingness to accept or acknowledge that receiving such a message, notwithstanding his intention, from a senior colleague late at night whilst at home, may be inappropriate and make Ms AC feel uncomfortable, exacerbates the offence.’
The judge said a final written warning would have been more appropriate.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
