Two tribunal judgments delivered within days of each other are prompting employers to review how far they can go in monitoring staff behaviour, and how much responsibility they bear for workplace culture.
The first, involving a dismissed administrator, found that browsing online for personal reasons during work, including shopping, did not warrant dismissal. The second concluded that an employee subjected to sexual conversations between colleagues, even when not directed at him, had experienced unlawful harassment.
Both cases suggest a change in how tribunals interpret fairness and harm in the workplace, with implications for policies on surveillance, misconduct and prevention duties.
Monitoring case ruled unfair dismissal
An accountancy firm was ordered to pay more than £14,000 after an employment judge ruled that an administrator had been unfairly dismissed for personal internet use.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
Ms A Lanuszka was tracked using spyware installed by her employer, Accountancy MK. The software showed she had spent a total of 84 minutes over two days on websites including Rightmove and Amazon. But Employment Judge Michael Magee found the activity was not “excessive”, and that the employer had no policy restricting such use.
A significant proportion of the time was spent on Excel training, the judge noted, and her dismissal coincided with what appeared to be a desire to remove her before she reached two years’ service — the point at which employees gain unfair dismissal rights.
He also pointed out that the company’s owner used her own work computer for personal matters, and that no disciplinary policy had been communicated to Ms Lanuszka.
The ruling emphasised that, absent clear policies or consistent enforcement, dismissal based on minor online activity during breaks or quiet periods can be unlawful.
Overheard sexual remarks deemed harassment
In a separate ruling, a Manchester employment tribunal found that an employee who overheard sexually explicit remarks between colleagues had been subjected to workplace harassment.
Mr M Davies, who worked at White Dove Garages Ltd, complained about repeated conversations containing sexual references, misogynistic language and a video involving violence against gay people. While none of the comments were aimed at him, the tribunal concluded they had the effect of violating his dignity and creating an offensive working environment.
The panel made its decision under the Equality Act 2010, which does not require harassment to be directed at the complainant, only that it had the purpose or effect of creating a hostile or degrading atmosphere.
The ruling reflects the legal changes introduced by the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which places a preventative duty on employers to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. The duty took effect in October 2024.
Legal obligations are expanding
Kate Palmer, employment services director at HR services firm Peninsula, said the case illustrated how seemingly private conversations could still carry legal consequences.
“Discussions of a sexual nature at work can easily result in a claim of sexual harassment, regardless of whether the people participating in the conversation object or not,” she said. “Failure to take steps to prevent sexual harassment, including managing conversations, can lead to costly tribunal claims.”
Palmer added that offending conduct need not be deliberate. “Whilst the conversations were not found to have the purpose of violating the employee’s dignity …. the tribunal held that they had that effect, ruling that the employee was subject to sexual harassment.”
Both the harassment and dismissal rulings reinforce a growing trend: tribunals examining not just conduct, but the policies, motives and culture behind it.
Practical steps to reduce risk
Employment specialists say the two rulings serve as a reminder that assumptions about workplace norms — such as tolerating banter or monitoring staff activity without notice — may no longer stand up to legal scrutiny.
To mitigate risk, legal and HR experts recommend several measures:
Establish clear, written policies: Acceptable personal use of work systems should be defined in writing and shared with all staff. Monitoring must be proportionate and compliant with data protection rules.
Apply disciplinary action consistently: Decisions should be based on documented policies, not personal judgment or convenience. Surveillance data should not be the sole basis for dismissal.
Strengthen anti-harassment frameworks: With the new statutory duty now in effect, employers must take “reasonable steps” to prevent harassment, including training, reporting mechanisms and cultural standards.
Address third-party and indirect conduct: Ensure all employees understand that harassment can include overheard remarks or behaviour not aimed at them. This applies across offices, remote workspaces and social events.
Review workplace culture regularly: Anonymous feedback, exit interviews and incident monitoring can help identify risks before they escalate into formal claims.
