advice

I used to make my living giving advice over the phone. My knowledge of the law was, and is, pretty solid. During my years on the phone, I dealt with the lot of the same quite specific problems on a regular basis. Below is an example of a conversation I had more than once with various callers, who were usually owners or HR managers of a company.

Caller: So in the office/on site/at the staff party, Person X punched Person Y in the face.
Me: What have you done so far?
Caller: We've suspended Person X. We're not sure what to do now.
Me: [explains disciplinary procedures]
Caller: Can we sack him?
Me: Generally speaking, it's considered to be within the range of reasonable responses to treat assaulting a colleague as gross misconduct.

This even happened once:

Caller: But some of our clients really like Person X, and I don't think they'd be too happy if we sacked him.
Me: You aren't obliged to sack him. But it may be worth bearing in mind that you have a duty of care to all your employees, and it's possible that being obliged to continue to work with someone who punched him in the face may lead Person Y to consider submitting a grievance or even potentially claiming constructive dismissal.

(Yes, I talked like this. I still do if you ask me this kind of question.)

I believe that sacking Person X when he punches Person Y in the face is a very reasonable thing to do, and this belief does not change one bit if that person is Jeremy Clarkson. You don't get to punch someone in the face at work and continue working there, unless you're trying to stop them committing an act of mass destruction or you work as a boxer or something. Being good at your job or popular with a lot of customers (whatever your opinion on Clarkson, he is clearly both those things) isn't and shouldn't be enough to give you leave to punch people in the face.

This has been your employment law update for March. Thank you.