The Nationwide Building Society has been directed by an employment tribunal to pay over £350,000 in compensation to a former employee, Jayne Follows. Ms. Follows was made redundant after refusing Nationwide's return-to-office (RTO) mandate, citing her caregiving responsibilities and existing working conditions.

This legal dispute, spanning five years, has finally concluded with the tribunal's decision, which found Nationwide guilty of indirect disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Jayne Follows, described as a "top performer" in her role at Nationwide, faced redundancy in 2017 after she declined to give up her existing working conditions. Nationwide had previously allowed certain employees to work from home, including Ms. Follows, who needed this flexibility to care for her elderly and disabled mother. Despite her excellent performance and the recognition of her caregiving responsibilities, Nationwide decided to eliminate home-working contracts, arguing that junior staff required more physical supervision from their managers.

Ms. Follows’ refusal to relinquish her home-working arrangement led to her being designated as at risk of redundancy. She subsequently lodged a formal complaint, asserting that Nationwide was attempting to change her terms and conditions by relocating her to an unsuitable office location. When asked for a counter-proposal, she insisted on continuing her existing home-working arrangement, stating:

My counter-proposal is [for me] to continue on my existing home-working arrangement and this is never going to be supported [by you] based on unsupported and non-existent 'business needs'.”

In January 2018, Jayne Follows was made redundant with immediate effect. This action prompted her to file a legal case against Nationwide, alleging sex and disability discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal.

The employment tribunal - chaired by Employment Judge Mark Emery - ruled in favour of Ms. Follows, upholding her claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The tribunal found Nationwide's decision to eliminate home-working posts to lack a factual basis in evidence. It was determined that the decision was rooted in subjective impressions rather than a comprehensive analysis of business needs or consideration of alternative approaches.

The tribunal emphasized that Nationwide had made up its mind about eliminating home-working posts without assessing the actual business need for on-site Senior Lending Managers (SLMs). Additionally, they failed to consider alternative approaches that would accommodate employees' individual circumstances while meeting the company's objectives.

Following the tribunal's decision, Jayne Follows was awarded £345,708 in compensation. This substantial sum reflects the financial impact and emotional distress caused by her unfair dismissal and the discrimination she faced.

Preparing for a wedding is a time-consuming and often expensive endeavour. For many couples, the process of planning a wedding can be as demanding as it is joyous. The commitment to create a memorable celebration often requires significant time and resources, which can leave little room for other important aspects of life, such as work and personal time off. In the UK, where annual leave is highly valued, there has been growing discussion about the concept of "marriage leave," a unique employee benefit that allows couples to take time off from work to celebrate their weddings and honeymoons without using their precious annual leave allowance.

A bride, for instance, may find herself using up most, if not all, of her annual leave for various wedding-related activities, including dress fittings, the hen party, the wedding day itself and the honeymoon. This can be a delicate balancing act for couples, one that requires them to juggle their work commitments and personal lives seamlessly.

In contrast, some European countries have already embraced the idea of marriage leave. For example, Spanish workers are entitled to 15 paid calendar days off for their wedding, while in France, couples receive four days off for their own weddings and an additional day when their children get married. Malta also grants time off to employees for their weddings.

However, the UK has been somewhat slow in adopting this concept, with most employees relying solely on their annual leave allowance to accommodate their wedding and honeymoon plans. Currently, only 5% of UK employers offer marriage leave as a work perk, according to research from the wedding app Hitched.

Kate Palmer - Director at HR consultancy Peninsula - points out that the UK lacks any statutory laws regarding marriage leave. This is in contrast to countries like Spain and China, where there is a minimum allowance of three days off for weddings. Palmer suggests that this may be because UK employees already enjoy relatively generous statutory annual leave compared to their European counterparts.

She stated:

“Many UK employers will choose to provide staff with a contractual annual leave entitlement over and above the 5.6-week statutory holiday allowance. In addition to annual leave there are also family friendly leave entitlements in place, such as Maternity, Paternity and Shared Parental leave. 

“Neonatal Care Leave and Carer’s Leave will also take effect at some point in 2024. It could be argued that having additional time off specifically to get married or go on honeymoon is not needed on top of existing leave entitlements.”

Despite the lack of a legal mandate, a significant portion of UK workers believes that marriage leave should be introduced. According to the Hitched survey, 67% of respondents supported the idea of marriage leave. This indicates that there is a desire for more flexibility in how employees can use their time off, especially for life-changing events like weddings.

However, there are potential challenges to implementing marriage leave. Some argue that it may lead to discontent among employees who won't benefit from this additional leave. This could impact morale, retention rates and even a company's reputation.

To address this concern, some suggest alternative approaches, such as increasing flexibility around annual leave for all employees. This could involve allowing employees to take longer blocks of annual leave for significant life events, including weddings. Such flexibility could benefit all employees, not just those getting married.

Kate Palmer suggested:

“An employer may be better off looking at increasing their flexibility around the taking of annual leave for all employees where there is good reason to do so. For example, this might include allowing an employee to take 3 weeks annual leave in one block to get married, or to visit family abroad, when the usual cap is two weeks. That way, it is something that will potentially benefit all employees.”

Marriage leave is part of a larger conversation about work-life balance and the importance of employee well-being. While marriage leave specifically benefits couples planning weddings, it highlights the broader need for flexibility in how employees use their annual leave entitlements.

A shift towards more inclusive leave policies, including unlimited leave options, showcases trust in employees and can contribute to a positive workplace culture. When employees feel valued and supported by their employers, it can lead to increased job satisfaction and, ultimately, benefit the company as a whole.

Rachel Weaven - HR Consultant at Face 2 Face HR - agrees. She said:

“I think the world is changing and I think the way in which companies operate is changing, and actually, offering marriage leave is just another way for employers to become more inclusive and create a culture that wants to celebrate their employees.

“When employees feel more valued, guess who benefits – the company!”

In a recent survey of 1,000 people in the UK, an intriguing trend has emerged - one that sheds light on how remote work and flexible schedules are reshaping our work-life balance. It appears that many individuals are taking advantage of their newfound freedom to clean their homes while working. A surprising 60 percent of respondents admitted to tidying up between work tasks, sparking conversations about the evolving boundaries between work and personal life.

This study - conducted by an independent research firm - has not only uncovered this emerging trend but has also provided valuable insights into the specific habits and behaviours of those who engage in this practice. Notably, the data highlights the prominence of Monday as the day when most cleaning enthusiasts get to work, with a staggering 81 percent of participants revealing that they embark on their cleaning routines at the start of the week.

What makes this phenomenon even more interesting is the distinction between individuals who primarily work in traditional office settings and those who work from home. Among the latter group, 48 percent confessed to sneaking in some cleaning chores during their lunch breaks. The ability to integrate basic cleaning tasks into their daily schedules is seen as a perk by some remote workers, allowing them to maintain a tidy home environment alongside their professional duties.

However, while this trend may appear harmless, it is not without potential consequences. Employment law experts, like Elissa Thursfield - a Consultant Solicitor in the employment law team at Richard Nelson LLP - emphasize the importance of caution in navigating this new landscape. Flexibility in terms of location, they remind us, does not necessarily equate to flexible working hours.

Thursfield pointed out that deviating from specified working hours to engage in personal tasks, such as cleaning, can potentially be viewed as serious misconduct and may lead to disciplinary actions. This underscores the need for clear boundaries and expectations for remote workers. Employers are encouraged to establish guidelines for remote work practices, especially if they intend to enforce consequences for deviations from these rules.

One of the major concerns raised by employers is the impact of these cleaning breaks on productivity. Some argue that breaking away from work can disrupt productivity, while others believe that short breaks can provide a mental reset and boost overall efficiency. Striking the right balance between work and personal responsibilities is crucial for both employees and employers.

It's essential for employees to review their employment contracts and engage in open discussions with their employers regarding expectations and boundaries. Likewise, employers must adopt a thoughtful approach when addressing concerns about productivity and potential disruptions. Hasty decisions to force employees back into office environments should be avoided and any changes to work arrangements should undergo a thorough review process.

In the United Kingdom, where the importance of financial planning for retirement has never been more pronounced, startling statistics have recently come to light. A report by wealth manager Netwealth has revealed that a staggering 88% of individuals with workplace pensions have at least one unclaimed pension, amounting to an average of £28,000 per person. These dormant pots represent a substantial lost opportunity, particularly in the face of rising inflation and increasing living costs.

For those who have diligently contributed to their pensions throughout their careers, allowing these assets to remain unclaimed can have dire consequences. One of the primary concerns is the risk of eroding the value of these savings over time, especially when they are with providers who charge exorbitant management fees. This issue is not just about forgotten paperwork; it's about the potential financial security of retirees being compromised.

The dynamics of the modern job market mean that individuals will change jobs several times during their professional journey. This leads to the accumulation of multiple pensions over a lifetime, with the responsibility of keeping track of them falling squarely on the shoulders of their owners. Managing multiple pension pots can be overwhelming, with a barrage of paperwork and administrative tasks to contend with. It's no surprise, then, that many people struggle to oversee all their pensions effectively.

Charlotte Ransom, CEO of Netwealth stated: 

“It is very common to have several pools of retirement assets during our lifetime, and it is often difficult to successfully and actively track all of them, especially if they are sitting with multiple providers over a long period of time. The high number of stranded assets is clearly concerning, obstructing consumers from having a holistic view across all of their wealth in aggregate in order to be able to plan forward with confidence and identify the funds needed for key milestones.”

Netwealth's research has provided valuable insights into the extent of the problem. Among workers who have lost track of a pension, a concerning 42% revealed that between two and five of their various pension pots are now stranded. The situation is even more pronounced among female respondents, with a staggering 50% of women who confirmed having unclaimed pensions admitting that they do not have sight of or access to up to five company pensions accrued throughout their careers.

The implications of these findings are profound. In a society where financial stability in retirement is a paramount concern, leaving pension funds unclaimed can lead to a substantial shortfall in one's retirement income. As individuals grapple with the realities of an uncertain economic landscape, taking action to recover these lost assets is becoming increasingly vital.

Charlotte Ransom emphasised the importance of addressing this issue promptly. She added:

"Now more than ever, it is vital that consumers track down any stranded pensions that they have worked hard to earn, and that they act to recover them sooner rather than later to regain control over these important pools of value. Savers need to be protecting and fully maximising the value of their retirement savings, ensuring their assets are working as hard as they could be when it comes to delivering financial returns.”

The problem of unclaimed workplace pensions is not one that can be ignored. It's a financial challenge that requires individuals to take a proactive approach in order to safeguard their retirement income. Whether through regular pension audits, consolidation of pension pots, or seeking professional financial advice, there are steps that can be taken to ensure that these valuable assets do not go to waste - the potential loss of £28,000 per person is too significant to ignore, particularly in a climate of economic uncertainty.

An office worker who took an extended 28-month maternity leave and refused to return to work, lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. The case revolved around Jowita Parsons - an import coordinator at International Forest Products Limited - who spent a considerable period away from her job due to maternity leave and personal matters. While Parsons claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination on pregnancy and sex grounds, the employment tribunal ultimately ruled against her.

Jowita Parsons' extended absence from her job spanned two consecutive maternity leaves and additional time off for family-related issues. Her initial maternity leave started four weeks earlier than planned, shortly after she received a disciplinary warning for "aggressive and inappropriate behaviour" towards her line manager, Ben Wallace. This premature departure, coupled with her lack of clarity regarding her return date, caused disruption within the small company of just 21 staff members and significant stress to her colleagues.

Parsons had joined International Forest Products Limited as an import coordinator in March 2019. Within five months, her line manager - Ben Wallace - expressed concerns about her punctuality and work quality. Later that year, Wallace pointed out a mistake in her work via email, which led to a complaint from Parsons, who stated that their working relationship had "not got off to the best of starts." Subsequently, she received a disciplinary warning for her "aggressive and inappropriate behaviour" towards Wallace.

Following this disciplinary action, Parsons requested to commence her maternity leave four weeks ahead of schedule. As a result, Wallace had to arrange cover for her job at short notice, which resulted in poor business performance and additional stress for her colleagues.

In March 2020, two days after the UK went into lockdown, Parsons requested to extend her first maternity leave to 12 months. Although she was due to return to work in October of that year, she fell pregnant again and requested her second maternity leave to be attached to the first. With extensions due to family issues, she was not due to return to the office until the new year, having been on maternity leave for a total of two years, two months and two weeks.

When her line manager subsequently informed her of the need for additional training upon her return and requested a specific date, Parsons refused to provide one. Instead, she insisted that she would only return once her divorce proceedings and house sale had concluded, leaving her return open-ended.

In February 2022, her employment was terminated after she failed to return to work. Parsons attempted to sue the company for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and discrimination on the grounds of sex, but her claims were all dismissed by the tribunal.

Employment Judge Angela Shields stated that Parsons had been repeatedly asked to provide a reasonable timeframe for her return to work but was unable to do so. Shields emphasized that the reason for Parsons' dismissal was her refusal to return to work and the company could not keep her role open indefinitely. The Judge stated:

“The reason that the clamant was dismissed was because she refused to return to work and [the company] could no longer keep her role open indefinitely.”

She added:

“The tribunal was also satisfied that there were real pressures on [the firm] to fulfil the role of import coordinator and to have [Parsons] in her position and completing the work... there was a genuine disruption and overburdening of a small company whilst [she] was not in her role.”

In the realm of personal values and priorities, the United Kingdom has long been regarded as a nation with a strong work ethic. However, recent data from the Policy Institute at King's College London reveals a significant shift in the way the British public views work and its place in their lives. Of 24 nations included in a comprehensive study, the UK ranks among the lowest for the importance placed on work, signalling a changing attitude towards the age-old adage that 'work comes first.'

The study found that only 73% of the UK public believe work is very or rather important in their lives, placing the country at the bottom of the list when compared to the 24 nations surveyed. While this figure may not seem remarkably low, it is noteworthy when compared to countries like Italy, Spain, Sweden, France, and Norway, where over 90% of respondents prioritise work.

Interestingly, the proportion of Britons who consider work important has seen little change since 1990 when 76% felt this way, compared to 73% in 2022. This implies a relative stagnation in the perception of work's importance over the past three decades.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the study is the generational divide in attitudes towards work. While Baby Boomers and those born pre-1945 have seen the importance of work decline significantly as they leave the labour market, younger generations - including Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z - still view work as a crucial part of their lives. This shift indicates that younger individuals remain committed to their careers but are less likely to prioritise work above all else.

When it comes to work-life balance, the study reveals that only 22% of the UK public agrees that work should always come first, even if it means sacrificing leisure time. This percentage is notably lower than countries such as Spain (45%) and France (39%). Furthermore, there is a significant gender gap in these responses, with 28% of men advocating for work as the top priority compared to only 16% of women.

The research also emphasizes the importance of leisure time in the UK, with 93% of respondents stating that leisure time is very or rather important in their lives. While the UK is not alone in valuing leisure, countries like Sweden and Norway top the list with 96% expressing the same sentiment. This suggests that despite changing attitudes towards work, Britons continue to place a high value on their personal time for relaxation and enjoyment.

The study delves into perceptions about the relationship between hard work and a better life. In the UK, 39% of respondents believe that hard work usually leads to a better life, a figure that falls below the United States (55%) but surpasses Germany (28%). These statistics reveal that, while the British public acknowledges the importance of hard work, they may not hold the same level of optimism as their American counterparts.

Over time, the belief that hard work and luck are equally important for success has grown from 40% in 1990 to 49% in 2022. Meanwhile, the percentage of those who consider luck and connections more vital than hard work has decreased from 21% to 12%. This shift demonstrates a nuanced view of success, suggesting that the British public increasingly recognises the multifaceted nature of achievement.

The data from the Policy Institute at King's College London highlights the evolving perspectives of the UK public regarding work and leisure. While the importance of work remains significant, younger generations are less inclined to prioritise it above all else. The study also underscores the enduring value placed on leisure time and the nuanced understanding of success that recognises the roles of both hard work and luck.

A recent survey conducted by Investing Reviews - an investment comparison site -  has shed light on the sentiments and attitudes of over 2,000 UK citizens regarding retirement, pensions and investments. This comprehensive survey comes at a time when debates over retirement ages are intensifying not only in the UK but also in neighbouring countries like France. The findings are both revealing, offering a glimpse into the challenges and aspirations of UK citizens as they plan for their retirement years.

One of the standout findings from the survey is the significant desire among UK workers to lower the retirement age. Currently set at 66, this age threshold has come under scrutiny, with 68.71% of respondents expressing their belief that it should be decreased. This sentiment is noteworthy, given the ongoing protests in France against raising the retirement age from 62 to 64, highlighting a broader European concern about when one should retire.

Despite the desire to retire earlier, UK citizens face numerous challenges when it comes to ensuring a comfortable retirement. A staggering 71.16% of respondents believe that retiring in the UK has become more challenging than ever before. This perception is compounded by the fact that 62.60% of those surveyed do not think their pension alone will be sufficient to retire comfortably, prompting many to consider the need for additional investments.

The survey also underscores the frustration felt by UK workers regarding their pension contributions. Over half (55.82%) feel that they are unable to contribute as much to their pensions as they would like, leaving them with concerns about their financial security in retirement. Interestingly, 42.66% of respondents stated that they would consider switching to an entirely different career sector if it offered greater employer contributions to their pensions.

Delving deeper into sector-specific data, Investing Reviews previously analysed government data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to identify trends in employer pension contributions. The results showed that the 'public administration and defence (including compulsory social security)' sector has the highest percentage of employers contributing 20% or more to employees' pensions. Conversely, the 'wholesale and retail trade (including motor vehicles and motorcycle repair)' sector had the lowest percentage, with only 1.3% of employers making such contributions.

Another concerning finding from the survey is the lack of awareness among UK citizens about their own pension savings. A significant 34.93% of respondents admitted to not knowing exactly how much money is in their pension fund. This knowledge gap could have serious consequences for individuals' retirement planning and financial well-being.

Perhaps the most striking revelation of the survey is the desire among 42.66% of respondents to retire outside of the UK if given the opportunity. This aspiration raises questions about the challenges of keeping up with the increasing rate of inflation and the cost of living, factors that retirees must contend with when remaining in the UK.

The Investing Reviews survey provides a comprehensive snapshot of the UK's sentiment surrounding retirement, pensions and investments. It highlights a strong desire to lower the retirement age, concerns about the ability to retire comfortably, and the need for additional investments. It also underscores the importance of employer contributions and the knowledge gap regarding pension savings. The dream of retiring abroad serves as a poignant reminder of the financial challenges faced by many UK citizens as they plan for their golden years.

In a recent case heard in the Leeds Employment Tribunal, a Direct Line insurance worker - Maxine Lynskey - was awarded £64,645.07 in damages after winning a disability discrimination claim against her employer.

Maxine Lynskey began her career at Direct Line in April 2016 as a telesales consultant. For the first four years, she excelled in her role and was known for her enthusiasm and dedication to her work. However, in March 2020, Maxine started experiencing symptoms of menopause, including "brain fog," concentration difficulties and emotional fluctuations.

After sharing these challenges with her employer, Direct Line transferred her to a lower-paid role in June 2020, believing it would be less demanding. However, as the menopausal symptoms intensified, Mrs. Lynskey struggled to meet the performance requirements in her new position. Managers described her as "constantly trying to keep her head above water."

Her menopausal symptoms became increasingly debilitating, affecting her ability to concentrate, remember information and communicate effectively. Ms Lynskey also had difficulty navigating computer systems she had used for years. She described herself as "cold and unfriendly" during calls, which was noticed as a stark departure from her previous enthusiastic demeanour.

In January 2021, Maxine's boss, Danielle Wilburn, informed her that she would not receive a pay rise due to her performance being rated as "need for improvement." This decision further exacerbated Maxine's distress and by April, formal performance management proceedings were initiated, resulting in a written warning and a performance improvement plan for Ms Lynskey. Despite her openness about her condition, her boss insisted there were "no underlying conditions" and offered no support.

Ms Lynskey made the decision to resign from her position in May 2022. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against Direct Line, alleging constructive unfair dismissal, sex and age-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfavourable treatment related to her menopausal symptoms.

The Employment Tribunal in Leeds heard Ms Lynskey's case and rendered a judgment that upheld her claims of unfavourable treatment and the need for reasonable adjustments due to her menopausal symptoms. The tribunal found that denying her a pay rise was unfair, considering her condition made improvement challenging. However Ms Lynskey’s claims of constructive unfair dismissal, sex and age-related harassment were not successful,

Employment Judge Jennifer Maria Wade emphasized that Direct Line had "reached the limits" of compassion in supporting Maxine. However the judgment underscored that a less discriminatory approach should have been taken, including occupational health referral or considering alternative roles.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of the modern workplace, reshaping how we work, collaborate and achieve our goals. Asana, Inc. - a pioneering work management platform - recently unveiled its "State of AI at Work Report," drawing on insights from its Work Innovation Lab. This report not only highlights the increasing role of AI but also underscores the need for comprehensive guidance to navigate this AI-driven landscape.

The report showcases a significant trend: 36% of employees in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.) now incorporate AI into their work routines on a weekly basis. This statistic reflects a growing recognition of AI's strategic significance, with 55% of executives expecting their organisations to leverage AI for goal-setting and 61% expressing confidence that AI will outperform traditional methods in driving their companies toward their objectives.

Moreover, employees are not just passively accepting AI; they are eagerly embracing it as a strategic tool. Over half (51%) of executives are willing to invest more in workplace tools enhanced by AI capabilities. AI's applications at work are expanding rapidly, with 30% of employees using it for data analysis and 25% for administrative tasks. However 62% and 57% of employees respectively are eager to leverage AI for data analysis and administrative tasks. Even in creative domains, AI's potential is being recognised, as 45% of U.S. employees express interest in using AI for brainstorming, compared to 32% in the U.K.

Surprisingly, the prospect of AI assessing employee performance garnered interest, particularly in the U.S., where 38% of employees welcomed the idea - compared to 28% in the U.K. An intriguing revelation was that 15% of U.S. workers would entertain the notion of AI serving as their boss, nearly double the proportion in the U.K.

However, amid this eagerness for AI integration, concerns emerge. Approximately 26% of workers fret about being perceived as indolent for utilising AI, while 20% admitted feeling fraudulent for relying on AI support – a sentiment more pronounced among U.K. workers.

The report's findings also illuminate a pressing need for comprehensive guidance and training. A mere 24% of companies currently offer policies or guidelines on AI usage at work - and only 17% of employees received training on incorporating AI into their daily tasks. The gap is particularly evident in the U.K., where a mere 13% of companies offer such training, compared to 23% in the U.S.

The report stresses the urgency of bridging these gaps, as 48% of employees desire more direction from their employers on effective AI utilisation. Additionally, 39% acknowledge that a lack of AI training influences their decision to join a company.

Transparency about AI deployment also ranks high, with 59% of employees considering a company’s openness about AI usage a pivotal factor when evaluating potential employers.

Asana's "State of AI at Work Report" offers a revealing glimpse into the evolving landscape of AI in the workplace. While AI's transformative potential is being embraced with enthusiasm, there is a clear need for organisations to provide guidance, training and transparency to ensure that employees can harness the power of AI effectively and without fear.

Saket Srivastava, Chief Information Officer at Asana, commented:

“Our study shows that more employees are now embracing AI at work. Employees see the potential of AI to save time and help them focus on more strategic tasks. However, there are clear obstacles, with some employees harboring concerns about how their AI use could be perceived by peers and managers. Employees can’t navigate this AI shift alone. They need clear guidelines to understand AI's role in their functions, along with tailored training and accessible technologies to fully harness AI's capabilities. Organizations that get this right will leverage AI in a way that unlocks new levels of human ingenuity.”

In a recent case that raises important questions about the intersection of work and personal life in the digital age, the London Central Tribunal has ruled in favour of Razan Alsnih - an online news editor - who was unfairly dismissed by her employer, Al Quds Al-Arabi Publishing & Advertising (AQAA).

The Tribunal found that Alsnih's dismissal was unjust both procedurally and substantively. The case revolved around Alsnih's refusal to download the Viber app - a communication platform - on her personal mobile phone for work-related purposes.

Alsnih began her employment with AQAA in February 2014 as a Social Media Assistant and was later promoted to an Online News Editor position. In 2017, AQAA adopted the Viber platform as a means of communication for its web team, which Alsnih was required to use to stay connected with her colleagues and supervisors. However, Alsnih's refusal to install the app on her personal phone led to a series of events that culminated in her dismissal in February 2020.

The Tribunal noted that AQAA failed to conduct a proper investigation into the matter before making the decision to dismiss Alsnih. Moreover, no formal disciplinary hearing was held, depriving Alsnih of the opportunity to defend herself or understand the implications of her actions. The Tribunal highlighted that procedural shortcomings were evident throughout the process, rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair.

In addition to procedural failings, the Tribunal questioned the substantive grounds of the dismissal. It stated that no reasonable employer would dismiss an employee for refusing to use a work-related app on their personal mobile phone and no reasonable employer would refuse to provide alternatives such as a separate phone or phone line. While AQAA had valid reasons for requiring its staff - including Alsnih - to use Viber, it was unreasonable to expect her to use her personal phone, which blurred the boundaries between her professional and personal life.

The Tribunal's ruling underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between work and personal life, especially in the era of ubiquitous digital communication. Employers have a responsibility to respect their employees' boundaries and ensure that work-related tools do not infringe upon their private lives. While the convenience of instant communication has its merits, it should not come at the cost of an employee's well-being and personal space.

This ruling should serve as a reminder to employers about the importance of conducting thorough investigations, following proper procedures and respecting employees' boundaries in the digital realm. Failure to do so can lead to legal consequences and undermine both the well-being of employees and the reputation of the organisation.