Administrative worker who accidentally insulted a customer when she clicked 'reply' instead of 'forward' receives £5,000 for unfair dismissal

An administrative worker who was fired for accidentally addressing a customer as “at***” in an email has been awarded more than £5,000 in an unfair dismissal claim.

An employment tribunal found that Meliesha Jones accidentally pressed “reply” instead of “forward” on an email.

The 31-year-old had been trying to organize the rescheduling of a customer appointment with a colleague at the curtain company where she worked when she wrote to him: “He's at ***, so it's okay if you can't.”

Mrs Jones was deeply embarrassed when the customer's wife called the office and asked why she had treated her husband so abusively.

Despite offering to pay the customers £500 to resolve the complaint themselves, she was ultimately fired by her superiors as the couple threatened to leave bad reviews of the company on Trustpilot.

However, Ms Jones has now received £5,484 in compensation after a judge ruled that bosses had conducted a “sham investigation” and her dismissal was “unjustified”.

The hearing in Reading, Berkshire, was told that Ms Jones worked as a part-time administrator for small family business Vale Curtains and Blinds from May 2021 until she was dismissed for gross misconduct.

In June 2023, a customer who had made “multiple complaints” emailed about his order and attempted to obtain a full refund for his curtains.

It was heard that Ms. Jones felt that the customer had previously been “rude” to her on the phone.

She had asked to change the date of his next appointment and was planning to forward the email to the installation manager, Karl Gibbons, with the comment, “Hi Karl, can you change this? He's at home, so it doesn't matter if you can't.”

However, instead of clicking “Continue,” she accidentally clicked “Reply,” so the email was sent to the customer.

Shortly thereafter, the customer's wife called the office and, upon learning that Mrs. Jones had responded, asked, “Is there a reason you called my husband at ***?”

At the hearing, it was explained that Ms Jones was “shocked and dismayed” when she realised her mistake and summoned her colleague while she put the caller on speaker.

She apologized “professionally,” but the customer's wife asked to speak to Mrs. Jones' manager, who was not there.

When her boss, Jacqueline Smith, arrived and apologized again for her behavior, the customer's wife asked how she would be compensated and was told that she could not have her curtains for free.

When she threatened to go to the press and social media, Ms Smith said she would investigate the case and get back to her.

This prompted Ms Jones to offer to pay the customer £500 out of her own pocket “as a gesture of goodwill”.

However, when the customer contacted the owner directly and further threatened to make the incident public and leave a bad review on Trustpilot, it was said that bosses had decided to “get rid of” Ms Jones.

When she arrived at work, a crying Mrs Smith handed her an invitation to a disciplinary meeting.

It was said that Ms Jones continued working but was “very upset and angry”.

She was dismissed at her disciplinary hearing the following Monday and the client's wife was later sent an email informing her of the outcome “following the disgraceful email sent in error to your husband”.

Ms Jones appealed against her dismissal on 14 grounds, but her appeal was rejected.

In July 2023, she received her termination letter with the reason given being “formal company email to a customer containing derogatory language.”

It continues: “This is a particularly serious problem for our business as we are a small company and rely largely on word of mouth for repeat business.”

“Bad publicity could ruin the company if the customer decides to pursue the matter further.”

Employment Judge Akua Reindorf KC said: “I conclude from the evidence before me that the main reason for his decision was that the customer and his wife had threatened [Ms Jones’] Email in the press, social media and/or Trustpilot.

“I therefore conclude that the primary reason for her dismissal was not a conduct-related reason… it may therefore have been a legitimate reason.”

The judge concluded that the company “did not act fairly in the circumstances when it considered this to be sufficient grounds for her dismissal.”

“The disciplinary proceedings and dismissal were a farce aimed at appeasing the customer,” she added.

“I think they acted unreasonably,” she continued.

'[Ms Jones] the dismissal was unjustified.

“The wrong addressee was a real mistake, and this kind of thing happens often.”

Mrs Jones was awarded a total loss of earnings of £5,484.74 for this period.