A BBC sports reporter has lost his claim for unfair dismissal after being sacked by the broadcaster for breaching editorial policy by accepting gifts and endorsing products on social media.
The employment tribunal dismissed claims that Ian Stringer, who was a contestant on The Apprentice in 2008, was unfairly dismissed for blowing the whistle on a colleague during Covid restrictions, and described his approach to BBC training and policy as “cavalier”.
The tribunal accepted that he would mention his work at the BBC and his 51,000 followers on Twitter (now X) when requesting goods and services and was satisfied that Stringer agreed to promote companies in return for what they provided. He even requested some items using his BBC email account.
Stringer began working for BBC from 2002 on a casual basis until he was formally employed in 2007. In 2008 he was assigned as Leicester City football correspondent for BBC Radio Leicester.
The editorial guidelines stated: “We must not give undue prominence to products, services or trademarks, though we can refer to them and credit them where it is editorially justified. And people working for the BBC must not accept gifts or hospitality from anyone who might believe it will give them a business advantage.”
Unfair dismissal
Professor ‘astonishingly’ unfairly dismissed wins record £260k
‘Non-feminist’ belief discrimination claimant ordered to pay costs
Stringer was asked to familiarise himself with the guidelines when he was recruited, and reinforced by training.
The tribunal judgment said Stringer did not appear to take the training particularly seriously. In a later appeal meeting, he referred to completing training modules as quickly as he could: “You have to do it and you just click through and get it done” to “get management off his back”.
Stringer was asked by Mr Purohit, his line manager, to participate in a charity run from Leicester to Wembley Stadium in honour of a fan. There were discussions within the BBC about what could be said about the run, and what the claimant and other reporters could say or tweet.
The claimant obtained a number of free items, including a Garmin tracker for the run, free drinks, headphones, accommodation and insoles for running shoes.
The tribunal heard that Stringer was also provided with the use of two new lease cars for four years during his BBC employment. The tribunal saw documents for an Audi A3 Sportback 40 for a hire period of 12 months for a monthly rental of £0.
Stringer claimed the loan of the cars was because he was a personal friend of the director of the company and he used them to avoid them sitting on a forecourt while not being leased.
However, the tribunal panel said: “If this had been a private agreement between friends, with no commercial aspect, there would have been no need to post tweets about the company.”
In September 2021 a colleague highlighted to management Stringer’s use of X in endorsing commercial products and businesses. He was suspended and an investigation ensued.
It found in excess of 300 “shout outs” and that “in almost every email to companies requesting products [Stringer] mentions his work for the BBC and his 51,000 followers”.
The tribunal accepted that Stringer had made a protected disclosure regarding the breach of Covid guidelines but found that neither the dismissing officer nor the appeal officer knew about it at the time of dismissal.
The judgment in Ian Stringer v BBC said: “The reason for their decision to dismiss and to uphold that dismissal was because they considered the claimant had committed gross misconduct by accepting the ‘gifts’ of expensive vehicles from a company, without declaring this in accordance with the respondent’s policies.”
It continued: “Therefore, we are satisfied that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was conduct and that the protected disclosures formed no part of the dismissing officer’s reasons for dismissal. Therefore, the automatic unfair dismissal claim must fail.”
A claim for ordinary unfair dismissal also failed, the tribunal accepting that the reason for the dismissal was conduct. “We therefore find that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the respondent in light of its belief that the claimant had committed the conduct relied upon,” the tribunal said.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR roles in publishing and media on Personnel Today
Browse more HR roles in publishing and media
