Page 14 - December 2020

“IT’S THE MOST WONDERFUL TIME OF THE

YEAR...FOR TRIBUNAL CASES”

by DLP HR Team

WHATEVER THE STAGE or tiers of lockdown going on to successfully claim she had been
we may be in, it is unlikely that staff are going to constructively unfairly dismissed.
willingly give up their Christmas parties. Employers
can’t even think they are safe with Zoom Xmas NOT MY PARTY?!
parties.There is still plenty for management to be Not so quickly. Even those away from work
worried about and look out for. A perfect storm of functions, after-parties can potentially carry a legal
alcohol, late-night parties, too much food, and party duty. Employers are likely to be held liable for harm
spirits creates an environment where thoughts and arising from negligence between employees and by
opinions of others (whether good or bad) cannot discriminatory acts occurring at such events. So, not
help but come out. Whether its a punch or a pass— only is the business responsible for what happens at
either could well amount to gross misconduct and work, but also for what may happen after. In Bellman
both need to be handled properly. v Northampton Recruitment Ltd (2018), the after-
party taxis and drinks were paid for by the company,
OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND? which contributed to the decision that the

When it comes to Christmas gifts, bonuses, recruitment company were vicariously liable for the
additional holidays or other treats, do not forget MD, Mr Major, punching Mr Bellman after the
those who are absent.To forget those on maternity Christmas party, leading to Bellman sustaining brain
leave, sick leave or who are working from home damage and permanent disability.The court
could be seen as discriminatory.Treat everyone the considered whether the after-party was separate to
same and be consistent with the value and giving of work and looked at the nature of the job and the
any gifts. connection between the job and the conduct. On
appeal, it was held that the after-party was part of
TAKE COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY. the job and not an isolated social activity due in part

In Molly Philips v Pontcanna Pub Company (2018), to the company funding the party. Further, it was
the claimant was an employee of the respondent relevant that Major was the most senior person and
working in the Cameo Club in Wales which they had control of the staff and the business.
owned. During the company’s Christmas party on
New Year’s day 2018, a chief manager strangled the AFTER-PARTY
employee.The employee woke the next morning In Grimson v Display by Design (2012), Grimson
with no memory of the event but had facial paralysis punched an employee on the way home and was
due to a lack of oxygen, nerve damage or both terminated for gross misconduct after a disciplinary
sustained during the incident. Philips had been process.The process and dismissal were held fair by
employed for over two years by this point and the tribunal as the incident could not have occurred
submitted that the Club’s directors did not take the ‘but for’ the Christmas party that preceded it.
matter seriously, even after watching the CCTV
footage and knowing that her facial paralysis could FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT—TO PARRRTY!
be permanent. Philips gave evidence that her In Bhara v Ikea Ltd, the employees tried to downplay
directors told her to ‘get over it’. She resigned before a wrestling match as both ‘a tussle’ and ‘mates having

11 D L P . O R G . U K