Some tribunal cases are so bizarre, they have the power to stop you in your tracks and make you wonder ‘How on Earth…?’ Beneath the headline, the story can become obscured by legalistic arguments, but each of these cases casts light on everyday workplace moments for many people. From seemingly throwaway remarks to out-of-the-blue dismissals, here are 10 of the strangest employment tribunal cases from 2024.
1 Saying ‘Back in your day’ could have been discriminatory
Saying ‘back in your day’ to an older colleague could amount to ‘unwanted conduct’ an employment judge wrote in a tribunal decision.
In a case heard in April, employment tribunal judge Patrick Quill said that the “barbed and unwelcome” expression was used to highlight an age gap between co-workers.
The judge found no clear evidence that the ‘back in the day’ comment had been made. However, such a remark could have been unlawful if it had been
Older workers may sue under discrimination law over the use of the comment because it “related to age”, he added.
The case involved a nursing assistant working in Kent. Nursing assistant Ms Couperthwaite, who is in her sixties, unsuccessfully sued her employer, Hilton Nursing Partners, for discriminatory dismissal, disability discrimination and harassment in a claim alleging that a younger colleague suggested an operation had been free under the NHS “back in your day”.
Couperthwaite had been sacked by the company in October 2021 after not wearing a mask and PPE at the home of an elderly patient. In her appeal, she said she was the victim of “bullying and discrimination”.
Her claim was dismissed by Watford employment tribunal partly because Judge Quill found no clear evidence that the “back in the day” comment had been made. However, he noted that such a remark could have been unlawful if it had been.
2 Frumpy trousers comment was below the belt
Frumpy trousers (posed by models)
Photo: Shutterstock
In May, in another of our strangest employment tribunal cases, a female director at an investment management company who was told her trousers made her look ‘frumpy’ lost claims for unfair dismissal, sex and race discrimination at the employment tribunal.
Her claim for harassment was based on the company’s alleged failure to support her in her Indefinite Leave to Remain application but also a comment from the HR director that her trousers made her look like a “frumpy grandmother/auntie”.
Regarding the comment about her trousers, the tribunal judge ruled that “such a comment was unwanted conduct related to sex” because it was inherently linked to gender and “had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant’s dignity”.
However, the tribunal pointed out that this incident had occurred in November 2020, and so was outside the time limits for lodging a claim with Acas or a tribunal.
3 Lecturer unfairly dismissed for leaving work early
Later in the month, a further education lecturer was awarded more than £50,000 after he was unfairly dismissed for bringing lessons forward in order to leave work early.
An employment tribunal unanimously decided that Mr Barbrook would not have been dismissed by New City College in Hornchurch, east London, had a fair disciplinary procedure been followed.
Employment judge Howden-Evans ordered the employer, one of the largest further education college groups in the UK, to pay Barbrook £53,400 in compensation after finding the decision to dismiss fell beyond the band of reasonable responses.
She added that had a fair procedure had been adopted, there was “no chance that the claimant would have been dismissed. At most, he may have received a warning, but he was most likely to receive training on revised practices.”
4 Sushi comment was not racist
Shutterstock
A claim for direct race discrimination against SOAS University of London failed after a Japanese language and translation specialist accused her line manager of harassment, bullying and unfair treatment on the basis of her ethnicity.
The comment was made knowing that the claimant was Japanese and believing she would receive this positively”
Among the many issues considered by the employment tribunal was a comment made to the claimant, a Japanese woman, that she and her family enjoyed sushi.
Referring to the comment about the Sushi restaurant, the judgment said that the comment was made knowing that the claimant was Japanese and believing she would receive this positively. “She was making small talk and trying to establish a point of shared interest,” the judge said.
5 Dismissal of professor was ‘astonishing’
In yet another strange case involving senior figures in academia, this time in Ireland, a decision by University College Cork to unilaterally dismiss an economics professor was described as “astonishing”. Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the HR director had no authority to fire the complainant.
The adjudication officer said she would have awarded more if possible”
Wim Naudé was compensated to the tune of €300,000, the largest award ever made in Ireland against a public sector employer. The adjudication officer said she would have awarded more if possible.
Naudé had worked for the university from the Netherlands during the pandemic but always intended to relocate to Cork. His performance was described as “exceptional” and students’ grades reflected this.
He had found it difficult to secure a house in the city but regularly travelled there for work. As per university rules he was invited to suggest interim arrangements, but on doing so found himself dismissed by the head of HR.
WRC adjudication officer Lefre de Burgh said the case “by any measure, is quite extraordinary”, adding that the most astonishing thing about the respondent’s “putative, unilateral decision to dismiss the complainant outside of any procedure or process is that this is the case the respondent university advanced at hearing.”
6 Woman who worked unpaid for 20 years was unfairly dismissed
A wife and mother of two had worked at a Premier convenience store in Wales owned by her parents-in-law since 2002. She worked a minimum of 40 hours per week assisting with deliveries, working on the till, ordering goods and serving customers.
She repeatedly asked to receive a wage but was refused, and there were no records kept of her working hours. But, unknown to her, from 2018 until October 2022, her husband made declarations to HMRC that she was earning a wage of around £12,500 per year.
She repeatedly asked to receive a wage but was refused, and there were no records kept of her working hours”
The woman was denied time off and her husband was absent from the shop for four hours each day. In February 2022 it was agreed that she would start receiving a wage of £250 per week, amounting to £6.25 an hour for a 40-hour week.
This was paid in cash, there were no pay slips and no records of the payments and she still had to ask for the wages. These stopped in October so she resigned.
In the decision, employment judge Moore said: “We have no hesitation in concluding the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed for the reason or principal reason that she took action to enforce her right to the national minimum wage.”
7 German police officer dismissed for stealing cheese
The police officer was dismissed after stealing £480 worth of cheddar cheese. Photo: Gregory Gerber/Shutterstock
Not a UK employment tribunal case but strange nevertheless: In July, a German policeman lost an appeal to overturn his dismissal after stealing 180kg of cheddar cheese from the scene of an accident.
The highway patrol officer attended an accident in 2019 where a refrigerated container truck had overturned.
He loaded nine large packs of cheddar cheese, each weighing 20kg, into the police vehicle”
According to the Trier Administrative Court, after the investigation of the accident was complete, the police officer drove to the scene in a police minibus. Wearing his uniform, he asked employees of a recovery company to hand him some undamaged cheese packages – worth around €550 (£480) in total – from the container.
He loaded nine large packs of cheddar cheese, each weighing 20kg, into the police vehicle. Two were left in a social area at the police station, one was taken to a colleague’s car but the other six packs were not accounted for.
German news site SWR reported that he told his superior officer that the cheese had been lying in the road and it had been “released”.
In 2022, a regional court found him guilty of stealing the cheese and issued him a warning and a fine.
8 Dismissed under non-existent zero-tolerance policy
Photo: Shutterstock
A former ‘genius’ at an Apple Store in London won his claim for unfair dismissal after he ‘joked’ with a Chinese colleague about ‘you lot’ releasing ‘another deadly disease on the world’, a reference to the Covid pandemic.
In this strange case, the central London employment tribunal heard that racial stereotypes were often joked about within the team and he said he knew that the colleague would understand the joke intended. He did not intend to offend.
No reasonable employer would dismiss somebody by relying on the application of a zero-tolerance policy which does not exist”
In a disciplinary hearing, an Apple Store leader told the claimant: “There is no room for behaviour like this in Apple at all – we have a zero tolerance.”
The judgment said: “He [the manager] had in mind a policy of zero tolerance, which at best was his interpretation of some other policy, but it was not set out in the respondent’s relevant policies.”
It added: “No reasonable employer would dismiss somebody by relying on the application of a zero-tolerance policy which does not exist. If Apple wishes to impose a zero-tolerance policy that is for Apple to consider and justify.”
9 Breaking wind at younger colleague was ‘age discrimination’
In August, a judge ruled that breaking wind on a younger colleague at work amounted to age discrimination in a strange employment tribunal case involving bullying.
A manager at Birmingham City Council in his late fifties was said to have found it “amusing” to break wind on a younger colleague, employed as a caretaker, eating his lunch.
An employment tribunal heard that after doing so he told the younger worker, who was in his mid-30s: “I can get rid of you like I have the others in the past.”
The younger worker eventually went on sick leave before resigning, in October 2022, after being summoned to a disciplinary hearing, which he could not attend because of ill health. He later sued the council.
10 Tribunal claim over ‘dubious’ birthday leave fails
The claimant described a policy for good performers to have birthday leave as ‘dubious’
Image: Ruth Black/Shutterstock
In September we reported a strange employment tribunal case of how a solicitor who described a Citizens Advice policy to award hard-working staff their birthday off as ‘dubious’ lost her claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The claimant brought a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal in Manchester, relying on an alleged breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.
In July 2023, the director of operations announced the launch of a “Good Citizen Award” on an internal forum.
To describe the initiative as ‘dubious’ on a forum open to all employees was an inappropriate way of raising any concerns”
Each month, staff could nominate colleagues for being excellent collaborators. Nominations would be reviewed by the leadership team and winners would be able to take their birthday off as an additional day’s leave.
The claimant, who started working as a solicitor at Citizens Advice Manchester in 2010, posted in response: “That sounds a bit dubious to me.”
The chief executive, then posted that it was a shame that a few had reacted with such negativity.
“The claimant has admitted that her comment was ill-judged, and I agree,” said the judge. “To describe the initiative as ‘dubious’ on a forum open to all employees was an inappropriate way of raising any concerns that she might have.”
Strangest employment tribunal cases
The judgment concluded that the chief executive had “reasonable and proper cause” to respond in the same employee-wide forum supporting the initiative and regretting the negative reactions from the claimant and another employee.
However, the chief executive did not have reasonable and proper cause for commenting “What is dubious is whether those negative people are really aligned with the values and culture of CA”, said the judge. “I consider this went beyond a proportionate and appropriate employee-wide response to the posts.”
This comment could have been damaging “but not to such a serious extent that there was a breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.”
The judge added: “The complaint of constructive dismissal fails for this reason.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
