In the case of Razan Alsnih v Al Quds Al-Arabi Publishing & Advertising the claimant brought claims for ordinary unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and pay arrears. The respondent newspaper considers itself similar to The Guardian in terms of professionalism and content, although it is much smaller. It is published only in Arabic.
The claimant started her employment with the respondent in February 2014, initially as Social Media Assistant. In about 2016, she was made an Online News Editor. Sana Aloul was the Editor-in-Chief.
Ms Aloul was considered a self-employed freelancer and worked from home taking news from various sources, e.g. news agencies, social media etc.
The claimant was dismissed on 6 February 2020. Employment Judge Lewis believed that the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant refused to use the Viber App on her personal mobile unless the respondent provided a separate mobile or phone line. This was against a backdrop of an argument about her pay and contract.
The Tribunal ruled that procedural failings made the dismissal unfair. No formal investigation nor disciplinary hearing was held before minds were made up. There were oral and WhatsApp instructions to use Viber, but these do not replace the need for a disciplinary hearing. The claimant was not told her job was at stake.
The judge ruled that the dismissal was also unfair on substantive grounds. Applying the band of reasonable responses, no reasonable employer would dismiss an employee for refusing to put an intrusive work-related App on their personal mobile phone, using their personal number. No reasonable employer would refuse to pay for a separate phone or line. It was reasonable for the respondent to insist on their staff, including the claimant, using Viber. What was unreasonable, was the expectation that the claimant put it on her personal mobile. It meant she could not separate her home and work life.
There were practical alternatives. The respondent could have paid for an alternative phone or phone line or installed the App on the claimant’s laptop in a way which did not interfere with her personal phone.
The respondent did not show the claimant the basic courtesy of having a meeting, telling her its concerns, that she risked dismissal and listening to what she had to say, before abruptly cutting off her access to the website and dismissing her a few weeks later.
The Tribunal awarded compensation of almost £20,000 for the unfair dismissal and a further £12,000 in respect of the claims for breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
