A Wetherspoon worker who was sacked after sending a complaint email about his boss to 180 other pubs has won more than £12,000 after a judge ruled it was a mistake ‘anyone could make’.
Thomas Batsford mistakenly sent the email containing ‘serious allegations’ to every Wetherspoon in the east of England rather than just his regional manager, an employment tribunal heard.
The kitchen shift leader at the Swan and Angel in St Ives, Cambridge, immediately asked for it to be deleted when he realised his error, but the message had already been irretrievably dispatched.
An employment judge said it was ‘a mistake that any employee might have reasonably made’ but Mr Batsford was accused of a ‘defamatory’ data breach, gross misconduct and sacked without notice.
And after appearing at the tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, he has successfully sued the pub chain for unfair dismissal and won £12,502 in compensation after it was found that the company carried out a flawed investigation into him.
Mr Batsford started working in the pub in September 2018 but frictions arose when new manager Theresa Temperley arrived in December 2022 after replacing previous boss Michael Loveridge.
Immediately taking ‘something of a new broom approach’ to management, Miss Temperley clashed with Mr Batsford after he lied about his reason for absence one day in April 2023.
Thomas Batsford (pictured) mistakenly sent the email containing ‘serious allegations’ to 180 Wetherspoons pubs rather than just the regional manager as he had intended
The complaint was in relation to the behaviour of his boss at The Swan & Angel, St Ives, Cambridge (pictured) and another female colleague who he said had been sending ‘unprofessional’ WhatsApp messages
After appearing at the tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, he has successfully sued the pub chain for unfair dismissal and won £12,502 in compensation after it was found that the company carried out a flawed investigation into him
When questioned by Miss Temperley, the kitchen worker said he hadn’t come in because he felt he was being ‘mistreated and bullied’ by the manager and another colleague, Jess Lent.
He said he ‘had been reduced to tears by the treatment he had received’ the day before and ‘couldn’t face coming into work the following day’.
Miss Temperley had previously taken issue with his work including the cleaning of the canopy in the kitchen, a problem which had been noticed on the day he said was ‘bullied’.
Mr Batsford claimed the way he worked was down to ‘the way he had been trained’ under the previous boss.
However, Miss Temperley decided to suspend Mr Batsford and hold a disciplinary hearing about the issues in May.
But before it was held, Mr Batsford sent the grievance email complaining about how he’d been treated by the two women, making reference to WhatsApp messages ‘of a highly unprofessional nature’ which they had sent him.
This was received by almost 200 regional Wetherspoons pubs.
The tribunal heard: ‘In essence, the grievance included serious allegations against Miss Temperley and Miss Lent about their behaviour.
Miss Temperley decided to suspend Mr Batsford (pictured) and hold a disciplinary hearing about the issues in May but before it was held he sent the grievance email
‘Unfortunately, Mr Batsford sent the email to Jedd Murphy, who is a Regional Manager but also to the entire pub region that he manages rather than just to Jedd Murphy himself.
‘He sent it from a personal device at home in the early hours of May 5.
‘He immediately realised his error and sent a following email asking for the original email to be deleted and explaining that it was only meant for Jedd Murphy and not the entire region.
‘Sadly, the email had, by that time, been disseminated to some 180 pubs.’
Mr Batsford was found to have not deliberately sent the email to the whole region, and that it was ‘a mistake any employee might have reasonably made when sending an email late at night from a personal device’.
It continued: ‘He was using a personal device as he was at home, having been suspended.
‘He used the email that the search threw up and, of course, it turned out to be the email for the whole region.’
Wetherspoons continued with the disciplinary process, including new accusations that he had breached the companies internet, email and data policies at a rescheduled hearing when he was sacked without notice.
Mr Batsford was found to have not deliberately sent the email to the whole region, and that it was ‘a mistake any employee might have reasonably made’
The hearing was told that the investigating officer admitted that his mind was ‘already made up’ as Mr Batsford had ‘disseminated defamatory material about other members of staff and that this amounted to a breach of those policies’.
Employment Judge Kevin Palmer concluded that Mr Batsford’s dismissal was unfair, finding that the two women had an ‘animus against him and treated him poorly compared to others’.
The judge said: ‘[Wetherspoons] failed to investigate issues properly which fed directly into the issues which were the subject of the disciplinary process.
‘The issues raised in the grievance were very pertinent as were issues raised by [Mr Batsford] at the investigation meetings and at the disciplinary hearing itself.
‘These merited further investigation as part of the disciplinary hearing but they were ignored.
‘The grievance was treated separately despite being highly relevant.’
Mr Batsford’s claims for age discrimination and sex discrimination were dismissed.
