Toilet woes: Sacked worker wins case over cleaning
A sales assistant who was sacked after she refused to clean a toilet has been awarded more than £2000 for unfair dismissal.
Margaret Robertson, of Davaar Drive, Kilmarnock, told her boss at Pressbox she was not going to clean the staff toilet because her name was not on the cleaning rota for that day .
Mrs Robertson was suspended and sacked on January 25 after the incident in November after she attended a disciplinary hearing and lodged a grievance that was not upheld.
Employment judge Lucy Wiseman found Mrs Robertson to have been unfairly dismissed at an employment tribunal in Glasgow and awarded her £2400.
The tribunal heard Mrs Robertson was suspended and sent home on November 17 after she refused to clean the staff toilets.
Boss Matthew Donald told the tribunal he had to phone the police after Mrs Robertson's son phoned him and Iain Gemmell, who was to chair an upcoming disciplinary hearing, claiming he was a solicitor.
It was Mr Donald's understanding that the police told Mr Robertson not to make any more phone calls to the men.
On December 14, 2009, Mrs Robertson attended a disciplinary meeting. She did not answer any questions but read a statement she had prepared, outlining her reasons for not complying with the request to clean the toilet.
Chairman
Around the same time, she raised a grievance which included an objection to Mr Gemmell chairing the meeting as he was not an employee. Her grievance was not upheld.
Mrs Robertson was off sick for a week beginning December 18, last year, and the tribunal heard she blamed Mr Donald for her illness. She was unable to attend a further hearing, but sent a statement which was considered by Mr Donald and an HR advisor. They then sacked her.
Mrs Robertson received a letter saying the task of cleaning the toilet was part of her regular duties and he considered her refusal to be serious insubordination.
Mr Donald also said the phone calls from her son constituted a breach of the implied duty of trust. A subsequent appeal was rejected.
It was submitted on behalf of Mrs Robertson that the procedures had been flawed and unreasonable, and the decision to dismiss had been premeditated.
In a written statement, employment judge Wiseman said: "We were not satisfied Mr Donald had reasonable grounds upon which to sustain his belief that there had been a breach of trust caused by Mrs Robertson's son making phone calls, because Mr Donald had not at any time, spoken to Mrs Robertson about this matter."
She added: "The dismissal of Mrs Robertson was unfair."
