A recent news story involving actress Emma Thompson has shone a light on the subject of suspension in the workplace...
The news
While actress Dame Emma Thompson was having dinner in Mayfair’s exclusive restaurant at Brown’s Hotel last week, a senior waiter reportedly breached company protocol to ask for a selfie. Thompson declined as she did not want to impose on her guests and it was reported that the next day the waiter was suspended “until further notice”. It is being reported that Thompson is now urging Brown’s not to take disciplinary action against the waiter, with some newspapers already saying that he has been “sacked”.
What the news means
ACAS describes suspension as “when an employee continues to be employed but does not have to attend work or do any work”. Suspension may be appropriate if:
- There is a serious allegation of misconduct.
- It is not possible to properly investigate the allegation if an employee remains at work.
- There is a potential threat to the business or other employees.
- Relationships at work have broken down.
Allegations of misconduct and gross misconduct should be investigated fairly, firstly to maintain good practice within an organisation and secondly to ensure that an employer minimises its risk that an individual may bring a claim for unfair dismissal. It will be up to an employer to justify that suspension was an appropriate step to take in the circumstances and, as always, this will be fact specific.
What we think of the news
Suspension should not be used as a sanction or a kneejerk reaction when dealing with a potential disciplinary matter. An employer should carefully consider all other options including (but not limited to) moving an employee to a different area of the workplace, placing them on restricted duties, or requiring them to work under supervision. Only if all other options are not practical may suspension become necessary. There should be no assumption of guilt associated with a suspension especially if this could damage an individual’s reputation.
In this situation, the owner of Brown’s explained that it had “a strict policy of respecting guests’ privacy which applies to all staff members”. The media is reporting that Dame Emma is urging them not to “sack” the waiter for making the request, which in itself gives the impression that suspension is an automatic indication of dismissal (which it should not be, as we know). Whether dismissal would be a reasonable response to the alleged misconduct rests in the investigation and decision makers’ belief, hence why, according to The Telegraph, Brown’s have said that they will not comment on the outcome of the suspension. There is also the question of whether the “urging” of a high-profile celebrity not to follow their employment procedures is a reason for Brown’s Hotel not to continue with their processes, an interesting twist for any employer.
Overall, although suspension is likely to be appropriate in some instances (and most instances when it is obvious gross misconduct), it should never be an automatic approach for an employer dealing with a potential disciplinary matter. Brown’s cited concerns for “privacy and wellbeing of both team members and guests” but employers should always consider whether an employee can continue to carry out their normal role while investigations are underway. Whatever the outcome, we can’t imagine that this waiter thought by requesting a selfie he would end up making the national newspapers, or that Brown’s expected to have their employment procedures speculated upon to such an extent, and even potentially overturned by potential celebrity and/or media pressure.
If you would like advice on the way you or your company handle issues relating to the above content, you can contact Solicitor Heena Kapadi or Senior Associate, Siobhan Howard-Palmer.
This contains a general overview of information only. It does not constitute, and should not be relied upon, as legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter.
