Esther Marshall
Employment Advice
The importance of fair disciplinary procedures
A recent employment tribunal ruling has highlighted the importance of fair disciplinary procedures and the risks of relying on questionable evidence. The case involved Anna Lanuszka, an administrator at a small accountancy firm in Milton Keynes, Ms Lanuszka successfully claimed unfair dismissal after being dismissed for online shopping during work hours.
Ms Lanuszka was the sole full-time employee at Accountancy MK, a firm run by its founder, Ms Krauze, who occasionally employed family members. In July 2023, Lanuszka was summarily dismissed for allegedly engaging in “private business activities” during working hours—specifically, browsing estate listings and shopping websites such as Amazon and Very.
The dismissal letter cited a breach of the company’s code of conduct. However, Lanuszka denied ever having seen such a document and claimed she was unaware of any prior warnings or concerns about her performance.
Central to the case was the revelation that Ms Krauze had installed spyware on Lanuszka’s work computer shortly before the dismissal. The software recorded that over two days, Lanuszka had spent 1 hour and 24 minutes on personal activities. She admitted to browsing during her lunch break and noted that Ms Krauze herself occasionally used the same computer for personal matters.
The firm presented diary entries and internal records to support claims of ongoing performance issues. However, the tribunal found the documentation to be sparse, with Employment Judge Magee noting that much of it appeared to have been created specifically for the tribunal proceedings.
A key issue was whether Lanuszka had accrued the two years of continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Although she had worked for the business since before its restructuring in 2021, her formal contract with the newly incorporated entity began in September 2021—just shy of the two-year threshold at the time of dismissal.
Judge Magee concluded that Ms Krauze had deliberately timed the dismissal to avoid Lanuszka reaching the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not genuinely based on conduct, but rather on a desire to preempt Lanuszka’s employment rights.
The tribunal ruled in Lanuszka’s favour, awarding her £14,100 in compensation for loss of earnings. This included a 20% uplift for the employer’s failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Related insights
Anne Wijayarathne
Manzurul Islam
Esther Marshall, a Member and Solicitor specialising in Employment Law and Settlement Agreements, said:
“This case serves as a cautionary tale for employers. Dismissals must be preceded by clear warnings, documented concerns, and a proper disciplinary process. Employers risk an uplift being applied to compensation for failure to follow the correct procedure. The case also confirms that any surveillance or monitoring of employees must be proportionate and lawful. Employees should err on the side of caution and take advice from a specialist employment solicitor prior to installing spyware or other surveillance equipment.”