A shop worker who claimed she was unfairly dismissed has lost her case after a tribunal heard allegations that she spent too much time on her phone, drank an energy drink on the shop floor, and left work early because she had a party to attend.
Katie-Ann Moore brought claims against Retro Sports & Leisure Limited, trading as Redvers, after her employment as a senior sales assistant ended in January.
But the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal dismissed all of her claims, finding that the retailer had established a fair reason for dismissing her following longstanding concerns about her conduct and performance.
The tribunal heard markedly different accounts of Ms Moore’s time at the small retail business, where she had worked since July 2024.
She maintained that she worked hard, had good relationships with customers and was dismissed unexpectedly, while her former employer said concerns had been building for around a year.
These included punctuality, using her mobile phone on the shop floor, failing to help colleagues, showing a lack of initiative with routine tasks, and leaving the shop floor unattended.
Shop manager Mr Baudains described Ms Moore’s performance as diminishing and said she had become increasingly detached “to the point of rudeness”.
Part-owner Ian Le Couteur told the tribunal that the business had a “modest expectation of a fair day’s work with a modicum of respect”, neither of which he believed had ultimately been forthcoming.
Attempt to help her turn a corner
An appraisal carried out in October praised Ms Moore’s rapport with customers – particularly children – but raised concerns about timekeeping, presentation, restocking, teamwork, routine duties and phone use.
The tribunal found that the appraisal demonstrated the concerns had not simply been invented after her dismissal.
This “bespoke procedure” had been created specifically for Ms Moore in the hope of helping her “turn the corner”.
Among the more specific incidents raised by the retailer was an allegation that Ms Moore drank an energy drink on the shop floor against expectations.
The tribunal also heard that she spent excessive time on her phone and, on one occasion, allegedly left the shop floor unattended while socially speaking to men moving into neighbouring premises.
Customers were said to have been left waiting while the shop telephone rang unanswered.
Ms Moore disputed the significance placed on the incidents and argued that she had been treated differently from other members of staff.
Medical certificate confusion
Her health deteriorated during December 2025, and she was signed off sick between 16 and 30 December.
A dispute subsequently arose when she did not attend work on 30 December. Ms Moore said that, because of Irlen’s syndrome – which she described as a processing disorder – and her mental state, she had misread her medical certificate and believed 30 December was the last day she was supposed to be off rather than her first day back at work.
Mr Le Couteur regarded the absence as unauthorised and was sceptical of the explanation, saying she had never previously misread a sick note in that way.
Matters came to a head the following month following another dispute over Ms Moore leaving work early.
She said she had worked through a lunch break, believed she was entitled to take the time back and had permission to go.
But Mr Le Couteur said she told the shop manager that she intended to leave at 3.30pm because she believed she was owed an hour and “had a party to attend”.
He denied that she had permission and said she was not owed the time.
The business regarded the episode as further evidence of poor teamwork, particularly as Ms Moore had been given concessions including not having to work overtime and having a guaranteed lunch hour which were not offered to other staff.
Ms Moore was absent again on 13 January, which she attributed to new medication, insomnia and a stomach bug.
The retailer decided that day to terminate her employment and she was told at a meeting the following day.
Ms Moore maintained that the decision came without warning and said she had never received written or verbal warnings, while the company said the dismissal was the culmination of longstanding concerns rather than a response to her recent sickness absence or health difficulties.
“Perfection is not the statutory test”
Deputy tribunal chair Advocate Cyril Whelan found that the retailer genuinely held concerns about Ms Moore’s conduct and performance and had reasonable grounds for doing so.
Although he accepted that “a more structured disciplinary procedure might well have been preferable” and written warnings could have reduced the scope for disagreement, he added: “However, perfection is not the statutory test.”
Advocate Whelan said it was difficult to accept that Ms Moore could have been unaware of the continuing dissatisfaction or that the dismissal had fallen upon her “from a clear blue sky”.
The tribunal also accepted evidence that the approach to work was affecting other employees’ morale and that the business could have suffered if a “downward spiral” had been allowed to continue.
Advocate Whelan found compelling Mr Le Couteur’s evidence that dismissal had been a last resort because losing an employee created further difficulties for the small business, with remaining staff having to give up days off and recruitment proving difficult.
Ms Moore also claimed that she had not always received satisfactory payslips, but the tribunal accepted Mr Le Couteur’s evidence that they were routinely left in a dedicated space she had been given at the premises.
Her further claim that the company failed to provide written reasons for her dismissal was also rejected, with the tribunal finding that a termination letter adequately explained the concerns about daily duties, phone use and helping colleagues.
All of Ms Moore’s claims were dismissed and no order for costs was made.
