AskAmanda

AskAmanda Experienced HR consultant, HR Director and employment lawyer. All views are my own. www.astralishr.com

The CEO of software company Bolt has caused an outcry (at least in HR circles!) with his comments about firing his entir...
26/05/2026

The CEO of software company Bolt has caused an outcry (at least in HR circles!) with his comments about firing his entire HR team because they were "creating problems that didn't exist". But all is not what it seems with the statements made by Ryan Breslow - in fact, the company had to drastically reduce in size to survive, had been through several rounds of redundancies, and is now much smaller than it was before so of course the requirements for HR are now vastly different. He also hasn't fired his entire HR team...

I joined live TV news this weekend to debate the comments here: https://astralishr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GB-News-interview-230526-SD-480p.mp4

In a new Employment Tribunal decision this week, Nestle has been found liable for    after its employee, Mr Billings, wa...
18/03/2026

In a new Employment Tribunal decision this week, Nestle has been found liable for after its employee, Mr Billings, was found to have been va**ng in a toilet at the factory where he worked.

Mr Billings claimed disability discrimination in addition to unfair dismissal but did not win that element of the claim.

The judgement turned on the fact that the disciplinary manager had cited a CCTV recording clearly showing Mr Billings va**ng, the health and safety issues that that caused, and the fact that he did not believe Mr Billings when he said that he did not v**e, as reasons for his dismissal. However, during cross examination the disciplinary manager admitted that, had Mr Billings apologised for va**ng, he would have kept his job. Therefore, the real reason for the dismissal was not a loss of trust and confidence or a health and safety issue, but Mr Billings’ failure to apologise. The tribunal decided that a failure to apologise or admit a mistake did not constitute misconduct.

Mr Billings also relied on another disciplinary case that took place shortly before his, that of a colleague who stored a bag of clothing in an area that contained a fire hose. That employee had apologised and admitted their mistake, and consequently avoided dismissal.

This case makes it very clear that employers must be consistent when dismissing employees for gross misconduct. Similar examples and the approach taken in those are very relevant to whether a dismissal will be fair in the circumstances, as is the real reason for the dismissal. Employers should keep to the grounds cited as the reason for convening the disciplinary meeting if they decide to dismiss the employee as a result. Lack of remorse is still a factor in whether it is reasonable to dismiss an employee, but it was not sufficient in this case because other reasons had first been cited which were not then relied upon to dismiss.

I am seeing a sharp increase in employees bringing , and yet claims are sometimes taking in excess of 2 years to come to a hearing. The availability of tools is adding to the ability of employees to raise detailed grievances and issue claims asserting their rights, which employers cannot ignore. If you are an empoyer facing claims against your business, or need support with managing and , do get in touch for a confidential chat.



Employment Tribunal decision.

Address

London

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when AskAmanda posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to AskAmanda:

Shortcuts

Share