A Cautionary Tale of Policy, Procedure, and Personal Phone Use

Mr J Frankis v Mears Ltd: 3200409/2019 – Reserved Judgment.

An employment dispute centred around the excessive personal use of a company mobile phone brings to light several critical lessons for employers and HR professionals. The case, while specific in its details, reminds us that there’s more to policy adherence and procedural fairness than simply having written policies and procedures.

The Essence of the Case

Mr Frankis was employed by Mears Ltd, under contract from Thurrock Borough Council, as a Plumber/Multi-Trade Operative. It is perhaps useful to note that he had formally worked for the Council before being transferred under TUPE regulations twice as the contract was out-sourced. Mr Frankis’ duties, which involved reactive repairs and a significant amount of lone working, required the use of a company-provided mobile phone. It came to light that Frankis had been using this mobile for personal calls extensively, leading to his dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct.

Frankis contended his dismissal was unfair, claiming ignorance of the mobile phone use policy, a biased investigation (stemming from a previous grievance against the investigating officer), and arguing that dismissal was an excessively harsh reaction.

Tribunal Findings: A Closer Look

The Employment Tribunal’s decision, which ultimately did not uphold Frankis’s complaint, illuminates several key areas where employers must tread carefully:

• Policy Awareness: The tribunal found that Frankis had, indeed, been made aware of the mobile phone policy via the Employee Handbook. This verdict underscores the necessity of ensuring not just the existence of policies but also their effective communication to employees.
• Investigative Impartiality: Despite allegations of bias, the tribunal was satisfied with the independence and fairness of the investigation into Frankis’s phone use. This aspect highlights the critical importance of impartiality and objectivity in disciplinary investigations.
• Procedural Fairness: The adjudication process, from the suspension letter to the appeal, was deemed fair and reasonable. This area reaffirms the significance of adhering to established procedures and ensuring employees are afforded their rights to representation and appeal.

Key Takeaways for Employers and HR Professionals

1. Communication is Key: Make sure your policies are not just written but are actively communicated and understood by all employees.
2. Impartiality in Investigations: Wherever possible ensure the person conducting an investigation has no prior involvement or bias regarding the case at hand. This can be difficult in small organisations, and Employment Tribunals understand this, but it is always worth considering whether bringing in an external specialist would be useful.
3. Procedural Integrity: Adhere strictly to your disciplinary procedures, and always allow for an appeal process.

Stay Ahead of the Curve

While Mr J Frankis v Mears Ltd serves as a cautionary tale, it also presents an opportunity for reflection and proactive management. As employers, it’s imperative to review and refine your disciplinary policies and procedures. Do they stand up to scrutiny? Are your managers trained in their implementation? Do your employees know the policies that affect them, or even where they can find them?

Don’t wait for a tribunal to find out. Reach out today for a comprehensive review of your policies and procedures, ensuring your organisation remains on solid ground.