Repeatedly telling your boss they’re incompetent shouldn’t be a sackable offence, tribunal concludes

Repeatedly telling your boss that they are not competent is not a sackable offence, a tribunal has ruled.

The decision comes after an engineering worker discovered his new manager was not a qualified engineer and informed him on several occasions he was not capable of doing the job. 

Andrew Estcourt had been working on a large-scale engineering project at the time and expressed doubts about his boss’s competence over three months, both in person and via email. 

He was sacked from his role for being ‘obstructive’, but took the case to an employment tribunal where he has now won £66,295 in compensation.

Mr Estcourt began working for construction company Skanska in 2011 before joining a joint venture with Morrison Energy Services to work on contracts with National Grid and Cadent. He ultimately became chief engineer in 2018. 

His main work focused on designing the engineering for excavations required to replace gas mains in North London.

In November 2020, he was told that he would be working on a project with James Irving, who was a safety specialist and not an engineer. 

Mr Estcourt believed Mr Irving would not be able to fulfil the role as he did not have an engineering qualification.

However he was reassured that there had been an appropriate selection process.

In January 2021, Mr Estcourt told Mr Irving during a Teams meeting with colleagues that he did not believe he was competent for the role.

Repeatedly telling your boss that they are not competent is not a sackable offence, a tribunal has ruled

Mr Irving disagreed and said he was particularly aware of the health and safety aspects of the work.

However, between then and April 2021, Mr Estcourt told him on a number of occasions in person and on an email that he did not think he was competent.

Mr Estcourt, who had been transferred onto the project under protest, was now directly managed by Mr Irving.

He also emailed the executive director of the company and said that he did not believe that his colleague was competent – but did not receive a reply.

Later that month, his Morrison Energy Services received a letter from Cadent Gas, to whom they were being contracted, saying that Mr Estcourt should be ‘removed immediately’ from the contract as he had been ‘obstructive’ and ‘unsupportive’.

The next day he was told that he had been dismissed from the project and suspended on full pay.

He sent an email to HR challenging the decision and later raised a grievance against the company.

His grievance, which included not being updated about the HR process, was dismissed and he started looking for jobs elsewhere.

Mr Estcourt took the case to a tribunal in Watford where his claim of unfair dismissal was successful after a judge concluded the only reason for his sacking was judged to be his protected disclosures.

Mr Estcourt told the tribunal that the sacking had made him feel ‘humiliated’ and damaged his reputation within the sector.

He said he had become socially withdrawn, distracted and irritable and was diagnosed with hypertension in 2022.

The tribunal awarded him £66,295 in compensation for his sacking and £1,800 in legal costs.

Employment Judge Sally Cowen said: ‘The Tribunal concluded that in order to be a fair and reasonable process, (Morrison Energy Services) would have to be satisfied that the removal was a reasonable request on the basis of the reasons given, before proceeding to consider redeployment or dismissal.’

But the judge found that Mr Estcourt was considered an ‘exemplary employee’ and that the company was aware ‘they did not have justifiable reasons’ to dismiss him.