They were sacked for surfing the internet at work … now sisters win £7,600 damages

Published on Friday 6 February 2009 20:54

TWO sisters who were sacked for using the internet for private purposes while at work have been awarded a total of just over £7,600 in compensation after winning claims for unfair dismissal.

Administration staff Morven Grant and Louise Wood were fired for gross misconduct after visiting websites of companies including EasyJet and Boots, which were unconnected with their employment duties.

However, at a tribunal in Aberdeen employment judge Reg Christie concluded that no reasonable employer would have sacked them in these circumstances.

Miss Grant and Mrs Ross had between them worked at Mitie Property Services (UK) in Forres for 32 years when they were sacked. A request had been made to check their internet use.

The company's operations manager, John Ross, claimed that the screens had been "clicked" so they became blank on occasions when he approached the women.

Elizabeth Thomson, the human resources manager, believed they had been accessing the internet for personal use within core working times.

A check showed a number of non-work-related internet sites had been accessed, including easyjet.com, virgin.net and Boots.com.

At a disciplinary hearing, Miss Grant did not deny she had been using the internet and was dismissed with immediate effect at a meeting which lasted no more than ten minutes.

Mrs Wood also admitted to use of the internet, but said she did not feel it was excessive. She was also sacked, for gross misconduct for excessive use of the internet.

The tribunal heard there were no problems concerning the work done by the two women.

They said they had not used the internet when there was work to be done. Instead, they only visited websites for personal reasons during periods when work was slack.

The tribunal heard that staff were allowed to use computers for internet access and personal e-mails outside core working times, as long as it did not breach other company policies and guidelines. "Core working times" were not defined.

The tribunal noted that a reasonable employer would recognise the mere use of the internet was far less serious than accessing websites with an illegal or sexual content.

The tribunal concluded no reasonable employer would have dismissed the women, and found they were both unfairly sacked.

However, they were found to be 25 per cent to blame.

Miss Grant, of Glenmore Place, Forres, who had eight years' service, was awarded 3,322 compensation and Mrs Wood, of Bogton Road, Forres, who had 24 years' service, was awarded 4,344 compensation.

John Lee, head of employment law at MBM Commercial, told The Scotsman it was possible for an employee to be sacked for using the internet at work, but he added that it was unlikely unless there were "extreme circumstances".

Even if the company had a policy banning personal use of the internet while at work, it would have to be an extreme case to justify dismissal, he said.

Normally, he added, it would be expected that a series of warnings would be given out first.

Mr Lee added that it is legal for employers to use surveillance techniques to monitor the e-mails and internet use of staff, but said that companies would be expected to give notice to the employee that this could happen.