Employee’s behaviour in hotel on work trip led to dismissal

Thornalley v Linkage Community Trust ET/2600377/11

Date added: 23 February 2012

unfair dismissal | behaviour outside the workplace | work trips

Employee misbehaviour on work trips can sometimes justify dismissal, as this case demonstrates. 

Practical tips

Employers should ensure that employees are aware of the standards that are expected of them when they are representing the organisation outside the workplace, for example during business trips. 

Employees should be warned of the potential consequences if these standards are not met. 

Ms Thornalley worked for Linkage Community Trust, which is a charity engaged in caring for people who have learning difficulties. At the time of her dismissal, she was a transition coordinator. Part of this role involved undertaking marketing exercises. 

On 5 October 2010, Ms Barker (another transition coordinator) made a “pitch” to her line manager, proposing that she and Ms Thornalley would go on a marketing trip over 7 and 8 October 2010. She said that, during the trip, the pair would visit 10 establishments. The trust approved the trip. 

It is unclear how many establishments the two employees visited on 7 October but, after a late lunch, they went to the Overstone Park Hotel for the night. 

That evening, the two employees had dinner in the hotel, and were in the restaurant and bar area from around 7.30pm until midnight. They had two small bottles of wine and three or four large bottles, one of which may have been paid for by two men that they met during the evening. At midnight, they went to Ms Thornalley’s hotel room, where one or two men joined them. Ms Barker went for a “somewhat disorderly and noisy jog” along the balcony, which must have woken up other guests, because a member of hotel security arrived to tell them to quiet down. 

According to Ms Thornalley’s evidence, events continued in the hotel room until around 1.00am, when she told Ms Barker and the man to leave. Ms Thornalley’s evidence was that Ms Barker had “unfortunately” spilt red wine on the bed and possibly the side tables. Ms Thornalley later denied that this had caused any significant damage, and that she had “bundled the soiled bed linen into the wardrobe”, where it was found by hotel staff the next day. 

Around 9.45am the next morning, the employees checked out of the hotel. Ms Thornalley’s evidence was that she had cleaned up the spillage in the hotel room and there was “nothing of significance” left. Neither employee said anything about the matter to the receptionist when they checked out. They did not offer an apology or to ask the hotel send a bill for any damage. 

The hotel manager, Mr Wardle, made a complaint about the two employees directly to the trust, as the hotel room had been booked in its name. The trust’s investigation into the marketing trip revealed that the employees might not have visited all 10 marketing targets. The tribunal later found that the investigating officer had reasonably concluded that the employees had not visited at least five of the targets. There was no doubt that the employees had visited at least one site on 7 October 2010. However, on Monday 11 October, they had destroyed their handwritten record of their visits. It appears that the trust suspected that the employees did not complete their visits on 8 October because of the state that Ms Barker was in that morning. 

The trust dismissed both Ms Thornalley and Ms Barker. The first reason for Ms Thornalley’s summary dismissal was her unprofessional approach to the marketing exercise of 7 and 8 October 2010. The second reason was her bringing the trust into disrepute by her conduct on 7 October at the hotel. Ms Thornalley’s appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful, and she claimed unfair dismissal. 

The trust argued that, if news of Ms Thornalley’s behaviour had got out, it would have brought the trust into serious disrepute and the press “would have had a field day”. The tribunal found the trust’s evidence as to the vulnerability of high-profile charities to adverse media publicity compelling. 

The tribunal found that the trust genuinely believed that Ms Thornalley was guilty of the misconduct and reasonably concluded that she had failed to take a reasonable approach to the events in question. Even though Ms Barker had been “the principal culprit”, Ms Thornalley had failed to help remedy matters by attempting to defuse or contain the situation. 

The tribunal said that Ms Thornalley had also failed to take “ownership” of the matter. During the disciplinary process, she had “sought to impugn the integrity of the hotel manager”, and showed no remorse for what had happened. The tribunal agreed with the trust that trust and confidence in employees was “absolutely vital” for Ms Thornalley’s role. If she could not be trusted on a night away to look after a colleague, or to deal with an incident properly the following day, how could she be trusted on matters such as being responsible for vulnerable people on a day trip?

The tribunal held that, “although it might look somewhat harsh” because Ms Barker was clearly more at fault for the events in question, the trust’s decision to dismiss Ms Thornalley was not outside the range of reasonable responses. 

View the full transcript of the case 

Additional resources