Ever had one of those days at work where you just thought “this is absolutely bonkers”?
Well these employees took their bonkers situations to an employment tribunal and some of the outcomes are truly wild.
At Stribe we know that good employee relations are key to avoiding these kinds of disputes, so we wanted to take a look at some of the most unusual cases to see what employers can learn from these uncommon situations.
Here are eight real life employment tribunal cases that highlight just how unpredictable workplaces can be and how important it is for employers to follow procedures to avoid poor outcomes.
The case of Nicola Thorp and Portico/PwC began in 2015 when she was sent home without pay for refusing to wear 2-4 inch high heels while working as an outsourced receptionist.
Ms Thorp argued the dress code policy, which required women to wear specific footwear that men were not required to wear, was inherently discriminatory.
Although the tribunal ultimately rejected her case on the technical basis of how the law applied to agency staff, the ensuing publicity led Parliament to launch an inquiry into dress codes and discrimination.
This resulted in a government recommendation that companies should review and update their dress code policies to eliminate unnecessary, gender based requirements.
The crucial takeaway here is that dress codes must be gender neutral and justifiable.
Requiring specific attire that causes discomfort or places a disproportionate burden on one gender could be deemed as discriminatory. Employers should be considered in how they enforce uniform standards to maintain fairness to empower employees.
In 2023, a case concluded involving a train driver for West Midlands Trains, who was dismissed for gross misconduct after playing two ill-judged pranks on a female colleague with a severe phobia.
The pranks involved placing a tarantula exoskeleton and, later, a shed snake skin in her pigeonhole, aimed to play into her fears.
Although the pranks were inappropriate and certainly caused distress, the Birmingham tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair because the company had failed to follow proper procedures and did not adequately prove the high bar required for gross misconduct.
The takeaway here is, whilst disciplinary action may be necessary, what’s important is the way in which it is implemented to ensure proper processes are followed in the eyes of the law.
HR must always apply the “band of reasonable responses” test before dismissing, termination is only warranted when it is a proportionate sanction, and an example like this does not automatically meet the threshold for gross misconduct.
This case, which went to a tribunal in Liverpool around 2016 and concluded in 2022, highlights a crucial point in UK HR law: a single outburst of vulgar language, even directed at a superior, does not automatically equate to gross misconduct.
The incident involved an office manager who, during a highly tense and emotional meeting with her manager and a company director, lost her temper and called them “d***heads.” The manager immediately responded by dismissing her on the spot.
The Employment Tribunal ultimately found the manager was unfairly dismissed and awarded her compensation, despite not condoning the language used.
This decision was based on a critical assessment of the context. The insult was established as a single, spontaneous reaction in the “heat of the moment” from an employee with no prior disciplinary record.
The judge ruled that this isolated, unprofessional outburst did not constitute a fundamental breach of trust and confidence necessary to justify instant dismissal, especially when measured against the high legal bar set for gross misconduct.
The learning here is to never dismiss on the spot. Implement a clear disciplinary procedure that includes suspension for investigation.
Gross misconduct should be reserved for fundamental breaches that destroy trust and an isolated outburst usually warrants a formal warning, not instant dismissal.
In Manchester in 2021, an NHS nurse successfully claimed constructive dismissal due to a sustained campaign of passive aggressive bullying from a colleague following a professional disagreement.
This harassment included the colleague refusing to make her hot drinks when it was his turn on the team’s tea run, consistently ignoring her and excluding her from communications.
The tribunal ruled that the cumulative effect of these actions was enough to breach the fundamental duty of trust and confidence, forcing her to resign.
The lesson here is that HR must address conflict early and comprehensively – you cannot dismiss complaints about passive aggressive behaviour.
Cumulative acts of exclusion or disrespect create a hostile environment that invites expensive constructive dismissal claims, so use mediation and training to intervene quickly.
This case highlights a serious and often misunderstood area of UK employment law involving family run businesses, with similar tribunals occurring across the UK around 2018–2020.
The situation involved a woman who worked in her relatives’ family owned convenience store for two decades, often clocking over 40 hours a week, yet was never paid the correct National Minimum Wage.
When the pay issues became untenable, she finally resigned and successfully sued for unpaid wages and unfair dismissal. This demonstrates that family relationships offer absolutely no exemption from fundamental UK employment legislation.
For HR, this highlights the necessity of conducting regular audits on pay and contractual status, as the law is very clear: National Minimum Wage and basic employment rights apply to everyone, regardless of any informal or verbal agreements.
All working individuals, including family members, must be paid correctly and have clear, legally compliant contracts in place to protect both the employee and the business from significant financial penalties.
This age discrimination case from the Sheffield Tribunal in 2017 stands as a stark warning about the financial risks of age bias.
A senior engineering manager at Vesuvius was dismissed after nearly 40 years of loyal service and had been subjected to overt ageist remarks, notably being called an “old fossil” and explicitly criticised for “not knowing how to deal with millennials.”
The Tribunal ruled that he had been both unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to a company culture favouring younger staff, resulting in an enormous compensation award of £3.17 million.
Cases such as these prove that HR must always document the genuine commercial rationale for all senior level dismissals and ensure decisions are not based on subjective assumptions about age.
This case, decided by a tribunal in Norwich around 2020, marked a major evolution in the scope of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant, a former employee of the League Against Cruel Sports, successfully argued that his lifestyle qualified as a protected characteristic after he was dismissed, claiming the dismissal was due to his strongly held beliefs.
The tribunal confirmed that ethical veganism (defined as actively seeking to exclude all forms of animal exploitation from one’s diet and life, including clothing and transport) qualifies as a protected philosophical belief.
This was a significant widening of legal protection, ensuring people whose ethical frameworks govern their entire lives are protected from discrimination in the workplace.
The key HR lesson is to recognise the expanding scope of “philosophical belief.”
Employers should be mindful that such ethical stances must be treated with the same respect and potential for accommodation as religious beliefs. Review your anti-discrimination policy to ensure it is inclusive for everyone.
This case, which went to tribunal around 2023, concerning an employee at a large UK business, provides a bizarre and important example of where a claimed personal belief failed to shield an employee from disciplinary action for harassment.
The employee in question claimed he had a protected philosophical belief in his psychic ability to foresee the future through premonitory dreams and that this belief governed his interactions.
He was dismissed after repeatedly approaching a new female colleague, informing her he had several dreams about her and telling her he was “trapped and stunned by the essence of her smell.”
The tribunal ultimately ruled that the employee’s claimed psychic belief did not meet the legal test for protection under the equality act 2010.
In addition, even if the belief were protected, the way the employee manifested that belief, by making explicit, unsolicited comments to a colleague, was clearly a form of unwanted conduct related to sex, legally constituting sexual harassment and therefore the dismissal was justified.
The key HR lesson is that the manifestation of belief is not protected behaviour. Employers must prioritise the safety and dignity of all staff and using a personal belief to create a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment is a serious disciplinary offence.
These cases, however unusual, teach us powerful lessons.
For employers, they underscore the absolute necessity of fair process, consistent policies and respect for all employee rights and beliefs.
These cases highlight the importance of investing in training for managers and those in leadership positions, to ensure senior employees have a strong understanding of workplace law.
You can proactively spot underlying issues that lead to these disputes, such as team conflict or hostile cultures, by regularly running pulse surveys to gauge employee sentiment and address problems before they reach the tribunal stage.
For employers looking to gain insight and better understand employee frustrations, take a look at Stribe.
Performance punishment seems to be a growing problem, as dozens of employees are sharing their stories…
Read MoreFrom high-street retail to active commercial offices, the paranormal is deeply embedded across virtually every sector of British business.
Read MoreA review of 15 years of NHS sickness absence rates, looking at absence across healthcare Integrated Care Systems.
Read More
