Employment & Pensions Blog: Is It Fair to Dismiss an Employee for Shopping On Their Work Computer?

A recent Employment Tribunal judgment in the case of Lanuszka v Accountancy MK Services Limited serves as a cautionary tale for employers about the risks of dismissing employees for personal use of work equipment. In this case, an accountant who was terminated for accessing personal websites during working hours successfully claimed unfair dismissal and was awarded over £14,000 in compensation.

Background

Anna Lanuszka was the founder and sole director of Accountancy MK from October 2017, and in 2021 her employment transferred to the company’s successor, Accountancy MK Services. She had worked without prior disciplinary issues.

In July 2023, the business installed spyware software on Anna Lanuszka’s work computer. Over two days, the software recorded Ms Lanuszka spending around 1 hour 24 minutes on personal websites including Amazon, Very, and Rightmove.

Relying solely on this monitoring data, the company dismissed Ms Lanuszka on 31 July 2023 for “engaging in private business activities during working hours” and breaching the company’s Code of Conduct. No disciplinary hearing took place, and no prior warnings were issued.

Subsequently, Ms Lanuszka brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal was critical of the employer’s handling of the dismissal, highlighting several procedural and substantive failings:

• The Tribunal accepted Ms Lanuszka’s evidence that she had permission to use her work computer for personal matters during quiet periods and lunch breaks. The director herself was found to do the same.
• The employer had taken the spyware data at face value, without investigating how much of the activity was genuinely non-work related. Some of the time spent online browsing had been spent on professional development and job related tasks, and was wrongly classified as personal.
• While the business claimed Ms Lanuszka had been shown a Code of Conduct in 2021 which prohibited her conduct, the Tribunal found no evidence that a Code of Conduct or any policies were ever provided or explained to her.
• The Tribunal concluded that there was no disciplinary hearing, no warning, and no opportunity for Ms Lanuszka to respond. A letter supposedly inviting her to a hearing was never actually produced.
• Diary entries alleging performance issues were created after the Tribunal process had begun, seriously undermining the employer’s credibility.

The Tribunal concluded that Ms Lanuszka was not warned about performance issues through 2022 and 2023, was not given any warning and was not shown the policies at any stage.

The Real Reason for Dismissal?

Crucially, the Tribunal found that the employer had misunderstood Ms Lanuszka’s start date for the purposes of unfair dismissal protection. Believing her employment began in 2021 rather than her date of commencement with the predecessor company Accountancy MK Limited in 2017. The business wrongly assumed Ms Lanuszka hadn’t reached the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection. In fact, the business was wrong and continuity of service applied from her original start date in 2017, meaning she was protected from unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal concluded that the real motivation behind the spyware monitoring and subsequent dismissal was to terminate Ms Lanuszka’s employment before she reached the perceived two year threshold. As no fair process had been followed and no valid misconduct was established, the dismissal was deemed unfair. The Tribunal found it ‘just and equitable’ to award a 20% uplift due to the employer’s failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice.

Comment

Sometimes calculating whether an employee has two years of continuous employment is not as straightforward as it seems. Particularly, as was the case here, where a company founder is transferring from one company to another.

In the end, the judgment reinforces the importance of fairness, transparency, and process in all dismissal decisions. Occasional personal use of work devices will rarely justify dismissal unless clear and consistently applied policies are in place. Employers relying on monitoring software must go further than simply presenting data; proper investigation and input from the employee are essential.

If you require advice on support in relation to a disciplinary procedure or unfair dismissal claim, please contact a member of our Employment Team.