ADESOKAN v SAINSBURY’S
In this case Mr Adesokan (Mr A) was a manager who chose not to rectify a piece of work that was clearly damaging to his employer. It amounted to a negligent omission of his duties as a manager. He was dismissed, without notice, for gross misconduct. What Mr A failed to do did not amount to an act of dishonesty or intentional wrongdoing and the issue for the Court of Appeal was whether his negligence could be construed as gross misconduct.
The disciplinary rules at Sainsbury’s provide that gross misconduct is a breach of standards or rules so serious that it can lead to summary dismissal and that gross misconduct includes any other serious breach that leads to a loss of trust and confidence.
The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that Mr A’s 
negligent omission amounted to gross misconduct. Gross misconduct is not limited to either intentional wrongdoing or dishonesty. The ‘take away’ points are these:
- Negligence can damage the employment relationship to much the same effect as the damage caused by intentional wrongdoing or dishonesty
- Whether dismissal is warranted will depend on the damage to the relationship between the parties. It is the damage caused that a tribunal should focus on
- As with all dismissal cases the outcome will depend on the facts of each individual case. Courts should not easily find that a mere failure to act will amount to gross misconduct. A key factor in this case was Mr A’s seniority
The case also squashes, for the time being, the possibility of claimants claiming (as per Geys v Societe Generale) that if wrongfully dismissed they can affirm the contract and sue for lost wages arguing that the termination is not effective. The Court of Appeal held that when contracts of employment are wrongfully determined the remedy is limited to notice that would only have applied on lawful termination.
