Judgment approved by the court Vaultex UK Ltd v Bialas “27. The Respondent operates a ‘zero tolerance’ policy in respect of discriminatory language. However, the meaning of ‘zero tolerance’ is left to be decided in individual cases. Zero tolerance is not the same as saying that an offence will always amount to gross misconduct and justify, or necessarily result in, dismissal.” The policies do not say this. They do not mean this, and the Respondent did not understand them to mean this. 28. The Respondent operated a policy prohibiting the posting of any discriminatory language on its online systems. Before he first accessed the system the Claimant had to tick a box to confirm that he had read the policy. However, the Claimant was rushed when ticking that box and did not in fact read the policy. This is similar to what most people experience when ticking to confirm the terms and conditions for accessing websites, software, and digital services generally. He ticked that box 28 days before the post which would ultimately lead to his dismissal.” 9. The next subsection of the reasons is headed “The Post”. The tribunal found that in 2021 the respondent began operating a new intranet system similar to a social network, which it called “Workvivo”. We will set out the next few paragraphs in full: “30. The Claimant had been interested in what people posted on the Respondent’s Workvivo system. He saw that the system was bringing staff together from around the country. Staff were sharing things that were not directly connected to work, and they were not having action taken against them for that. 31. The Claimant posted on Workvivo media relating to his DJ set. He thought that this would be nice for people to see. He received no negative feedback about this. The Claimant felt emboldened by this. 32. On 28 September 2021 the Claimant’s work was slow. He did not have a great deal to do. He decided to search Google for a ‘clean’ joke that he could share with his colleagues. He specifically found a website which had a section of jokes which were described as appropriate for the workplace and to share with family. The Respondent says that the joke he eventually posted came from a different section of that joke website. However, the Claimant had from the outset of the investigation into his conduct urged the Respondent to specifically look at the clean section of the website. The Respondent researched the joke and found it under the ‘tech’ section of the website. The Respondent did not continue the search to the ‘clean’ section of the website. However, it is from the clean section of the website that the Claimant did in fact find the job (albeit that the Respondent had not found it there itself at the time of dismissal and did not know at the time of the dismissal that this is where it was found). The Respondent has always had the ability to prove where the joke was found by checking its internet records. However, [it] but chose not to conduct such a check. 33. The Claimant decided to post the joke that he had found on Workvivo. His post read as follows: “Something for Anti-Racist campaign from Dagenham Coin: Do not be racist; be like Mario. He’s an Italian plumber, who was made by the Japanese, speaks English, looks like a Mexican, jumps like a black man, and grabs coins like a Jew! :)” © EAT 2024 Page 5 [2024] EAT 19