An Employment Tribunal has confirmed that a supermarket acted fairly in summarily dismissing an employee of nearly 20 years’ standing after she called her line manager a ‘slapper’ in front of colleagues. The decision in Pearson v Tesco Stores Limited is a useful illustration and reminder of how Tribunals approach offensive language at work, and of how much weight a properly drafted policy carries when a dismissal is challenged. As a reminder, this is however only a first instance decision so it is not binding on future Tribunals but it is still useful to show the approach Tribunals are likely to take in similar cases.
The Claimant had worked for Tesco since December 2005 and was an online order picker at its Lincoln store. A new line manager took over her team on 28 April 2025. The following day, in the staff canteen, the Claimant told four colleagues that the manager was a ‘slapper’. It was later alleged she had also said the manager had ‘slept her way’ into getting the job. The Claimant admitted the first comment but denied the second throughout.
A disciplinary investigation began that July. Nine colleagues were interviewed, some of them more than once, and their accounts varied. Several confirmed the first comment, which was admitted in any event, and three separately recalled the Claimant saying the manager had obtained her position through a sexual relationship. The investigating manager concluded that both comments had been made. The Claimant was summarily dismissed on 12 September 2025 and her appeal was rejected that November.
The Procedural Challenges
The Claimant attacked the fairness of the disciplinary process on several grounds. The Judge rejected each of them, and his reasoning is worth setting out because these are the arguments employers meet very commonly in our experience.
A vague misconduct allegation: The letter inviting her to the disciplinary hearing referred to remarks about the manager that breached the bullying and harassment policy, without setting out the words themselves explicitly. The employer accepted this. The Judge found it made no difference, because the claimant had known all along which two comments were in issue and conceded as much in cross-examination.
No warning of gross misconduct: The letter did not use that phrase, but it did say the outcome could include dismissal. What an employee needs to understand is how serious the allegation is, not the label attached to it.
Witness statements withheld: This is a topic we regularly get questions on from employers. There is no automatic right to see statements in advance. The question is whether fairness requires it in the particular case. Here the claimant already knew the substance of the evidence and the statements were produced and read during the hearing.
Insufficient notice: Twenty-four hours complied with the employer’s own disciplinary policy. The Claimant had known about the investigation for twelve weeks and knew what her answer was.
Language And Context
The more interesting part of the judgment is in relation to the sanction of dismissal in our view. The Judge accepted that language has to be judged against the standards of the particular working environment, and that what passes without comment in one workplace may be unacceptable in another.
In this case those standards were written down in the anti-bullying policy which treated sexual comments and the spreading of sexual rumours about a colleague as harassment. The disciplinary policy listed acts of discrimination, harassment or bullying as examples of gross misconduct. Against that background the Judge had no difficulty finding that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Her evidence that she had never read either policy carried little weight either. Both sat on the staff intranet and she could have looked at them, and her union representative could be expected to know them.
The long service she had also did not save her, which shows long service does not render someone invincible from a gross misconduct dismissal even without any prior active warnings on record. The dismissing manager had taken her record and loyalty into account and weighed them against the seriousness of what was said, which is what a reasonable employer is expected to do. The wrongful dismissal claim failed on the same findings. Calling a line manager a ‘slapper’ and spreading a rumour that she had slept her way into the role was a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, so there was no entitlement to notice.
What This Means For Employers
Three practical points and reminders flow from the judgment in our view. Check that your bullying and harassment policy expressly covers sexual comments and rumours about colleagues, rather than leaving it to be inferred. Check that your disciplinary policy lists conduct of that kind as capable of amounting to gross misconduct, and that staff can actually find both documents. Lastly, when you put an allegation in writing, describe the conduct complained of rather than referring only to the policy said to have been breached.
Clients/ members dealing with a disciplinary matter involving offensive or discriminatory language, or considering dismissal for conduct of this kind, should get in touch before taking action.
As always, this advice is general in nature and should be tailored to the circumstances of any individual case. As an RMI member, you have access to the RMI legal advice line, as well as a range of industry experts who can assist you. If you find yourself facing any of the issues outlined above, please contact us at any stage for advice and support as appropriate.