The Jersey tribunal case every small business owner needs to read right now

Comsure is sharing the Michelle Bruce v Chapter One [2025] TRE 81 judgment as it is extremely important for small Jersey firms (SMEs) because:

• Most local SMEs lack in-house HR and frequently lose costly tribunal claims due to poor process or weak policies. The company utilised professional advisers to benefit all parties, ensuring the process was fair, transparent, and capable of withstanding external scrutiny.
• This case provides a clear "how-to" blueprint for lawfully dismissing for gross misconduct (confidentiality breach, insubordination, dishonesty & covert recording).
• It proves that the company’s decision to defend the claim, when many employers might have opted to settle, demonstrates the value of standing by a well-evidenced and procedurally sound position
• The judgment reinforces that such an approach can be vindicated publicly and help set clear internal and external expectations.
• Helps protect businesses from reputational damage. Although one cannot underestimate the burden on an employer in terms of legal costs, management time, and operational disruption when defending a claim, the company’s decision to defend demonstrated, amongst other matters, a principled stand for employers and small businesses alike.

In Michelle Bruce v Chapter One (Jersey) Limited, Judgment: The Jersey employment tribunal upheld the employer's summary dismissal of the claimant for gross misconduct involving

• Breaches of confidentiality,
• Insubordination,
• Dishonesty during investigation, and
• Covert recording of meetings.

In summary, the judgment affirms:-

• That dismissals for gross misconduct (defined as wilful breach, per Laws v London Chronicle) fall within a "range of reasonable responses" if grounded in evidence and fair process.
• Small firms aren't held to the same standards as large ones, but documentation and independence are key to defending claims.
• Employees must prioritise loyalty and compliance to avoid self-sabotage.
• If dismissed, employees should focus on concrete evidence of unreasonableness rather than speculative motives, as tribunals apply objective tests such as Burchell and emphasise the employer's genuine belief.
• Key takeaways emphasise the importance of robust policies, fair processes, and compliance for both parties.

Judgement: - https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/tribunal/Pages/[2025]TRE081.aspx

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TAKE-AWAY LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

Lessons for Firms (Employers)

• This judgment underscores several best practices for employers in handling disciplinary matters, investigations, and dismissals, particularly in cases involving misconduct like breaches of confidentiality or insubordination.

While the company successfully defended the claims, the tribunal's scrutiny highlights areas where firms can strengthen their approaches to minimise risks.

1. Establish Clear and Enforceable Policies: The company's handbook explicitly prohibited sharing confidential information, working for competitors without permission, and covert recording of meetings. These policies were contractual and reminded the employee, which further strengthened the employer's position. Firms should ensure policies are detailed, communicated regularly, and integrated into employment contracts to provide a solid basis for disciplinary action.
2. Conduct Thorough, Independent Investigations: Despite its size, the employer commissioned external forensic experts and independent HR professionals for the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. This impartiality helped demonstrate reasonableness under the Burchell test (belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds, and adequate investigation). Small firms, like this one, can justify procedural overlaps (e.g., a director's involvement across multiple stages) due to limited resources, but should document the rationale and use external safeguards to maintain fairness.
3. Handle Dishonesty and Post-Dismissal Discoveries Promptly: The tribunal accepted that, regardless of the serious breaches of the employee that led to the investigation and subsequent dismissal, the employee's dishonesty during the investigation was also a valid ground for dismissal. Additionally, the covert recordings discovered after dismissal were also used to justify the action retroactively (citing Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell). Firms should investigate inconsistencies swiftly and be prepared to rely on later evidence, but ensure core reasons for dismissal are established at the time.
4. Adhere to Procedural Fairness, Even in Small Organizations: The process included providing evidence to the employee, allowing a hearing (with adjournment for new materials), and an independent appeal. The tribunal emphasised the need to evaluate the overall process "in the round." Firms must follow statutory codes of practice, offer representation where required (e.g., at disciplinary hearings), and avoid delays that could prejudice suspended employees.
5. Address Disparity Claims Carefully: The employee argued inconsistent treatment compared to other staff misconduct, but the tribunal dismissed this due to a lack of similarity (citing Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos) and the timeliness of raising such a concern. Employers should consistently apply policies while focusing on the merits of each case, as tribunals prioritise specific circumstances over broad comparisons. In this instance, the point was raised only after dismissal, which meant the employer had no opportunity to investigate or respond to the allegation at the time, further undermining its relevance and evidentiary weight.
6. Protect Business Interests Proactively: The case involved potential damage from shared intellectual property and competitor assistance. Firms should monitor system access, use forensic tools for evidence, and include non-compete or fidelity clauses to deter breaches

Overall, the judgment affirms that:-

• Dismissals for gross misconduct (defined as wilful breach, per Laws v London Chronicle) fall within a "range of reasonable responses" if grounded in evidence and fair process.
• Small firms aren't held to the same standards as large ones, but documentation and independence are key to defending claims. 

Lessons for Employees

• The outcome illustrates the risks employees face when challenging dismissals, especially in misconduct cases.

While the claimant raised procedural and motivational issues that could not be substantiated, the tribunal focused on evidence of breaches and offered cautionary insights for workers.

1. Uphold Duties of Confidentiality and Fidelity: Do not underestimate the seriousness of sharing company information, a breach of implied duties and likely explicit policies, especially if aiding a competitor. Employees should seek explicit approval for any external assistance and avoid actions that could divide loyalties, as this can justify summary dismissal without notice. Actions can have far-reaching implications.
2. Be Transparent and Honest in Investigations: The employee's shifting explanations (from denial to admission, then blaming other parties) were deemed dishonest, forming a further key ground for dismissal. Provide consistent, truthful accounts from the start, and if traumatised or concerned about records, request accommodations rather than withholding information.
3. Comply with Company Directives, Including No-Recording Rules: Covertly recording meetings, despite prohibitions and reminders, was ruled gross misconduct on its own. Employees should respect such policies; if there is distrust, raise it openly or seek union/representative support rather than risking further breaches.
4. Participate Fully in Disciplinary Processes: The claimant declined to answer questions at the hearing, relying on a statement, which didn't help her case. Engage actively, provide evidence early, and exercise rights such as the right to accompany at hearings. Refusing to participate can weaken claims of procedural unfairness later.
5. Build Strong Evidence for Counter-Claims: Allegations of fabrication, plots, or disparities failed due to a lack of any probative evidence (e.g., no proof of manager's instructions). Unfounded allegations further undermine credibility. Employees should document interactions, gather contemporaneous records, and ensure that arguments are directly relevant to the dismissal reason. Disparity claims require "truly similar" cases, not just unrelated misconduct. In this case, the allegation of disparate treatment was not raised during the employee’s employment, nor during the investigation or disciplinary process. Hence, the company was unable to explore, test, or respond to it contemporaneously. As a result, the tribunal placed little weight on it, treating it as an after-the-fact assertion rather than a genuine procedural concern.
6. Understand Contractual and Statutory Rights: Summary dismissal without notice requires proving gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities for wrongful dismissal claims. Employees should review handbooks for processes and rights and consider resigning carefully (as the claimant retracted an initial offer). Post-dismissal actions (e.g., working with competitors) can reinforce the employer's narrative.

In summary,

• Employees must prioritise loyalty and compliance to avoid self-sabotage.
• If dismissed, focus on concrete evidence of unreasonableness rather than speculative motives, as tribunals apply objective tests such as Burchell and emphasise the employer's genuine belief.
• Tribunal judgments are public and often picked up by the media, so employees should think carefully or seek advice before simply progressing with a claim, particularly if the issues surrounding the claim are not well-supported, as the public nature of proceedings may have lasting professional and personal consequences.

 Judgement

• https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/tribunal/Pages/[2025]TRE081.aspx