Spending short periods of time shopping or browsing online during work hours is not a sackable offence, a UK judge has ruled in a case that awarded an employee more than £14,000 in compensation.
The Surprising Tale of a Fired Accountant and Hidden Spyware
The Incident That Shook a Small Firm
In July 2023, Ms A Lanuszka was let go from a modest accountancy firm called Accountancy MK. The reason she gave to the boss, Ms Krauze, was that the computer at work suddenly began tracking every website she visited. The list of sites turned out to be odd – Rightmove for property listings, Amazon for street‑shop stuff, but mainly everyday browsers. Nobody had told Lanuszka that her computer would be spying on her.
The paperwork from the company says she was only using the machine for an hour and 24 minutes over two days. The company says that was “excessive” and a reason to fire her. But a tribunal judge found that the claim was wrong. She was basically whistle‑blowing about the hidden tech when she was shut down.
What The Tribunal Actually Saw
Past Work History
Lanuszka started at the firm in 2017. A few years later, in 2021, the company underwent a brand‑change, with a new contract name: Accountancy MK. She had never had a bad review or any warning card on her file before.
Time Online Was Not Bad
Over two days, she logged on to the internet for 1 hour 24 minutes. About two‑thirds of that time was for something useful. She was learning Excel to help with spreadsheets and performing accounting‑related tasks. This is the sort of “learning” that a boss would be happy about. The rest was for general, harmless browsing.
The Boss Was Nodelled
Ms Krauze used the same company laptop for non‑work things too. She didn’t have a clear rule saying “no personal use?” Because of that, the machine that tracked her was the same machine that recorded the boss’s private trips. So Ms Klrauze didn’t have an “all‑or‑nothing” policy that said everything was off the books, they were just allowed to separate business hours from breaks.
Diary Claims That Didn’t Hold
When Ms Krauze handed in diaries that were supposed to show a long‑standing problem with Lanuszka, the judge saw these diaries were actually written in 2024, after the dismissal. They were then “back‑dated” to 2022 and 2023. That throws a big red flag into the mix because it looks like data may have been manipulated.
Why It Looks Like a Pretext for a “Dismissal Seat”
The tribunal concluded that the timing of the dismissal was engineered to avoid giving Lanuszka the legal protections that come after two years of service. In the UK, once an employee has worked for two years, they are entitled to a “full protection” model of unfair dismissal remedies. So firing her before she reached that threshold, especially right after a new sister of the boss moved permanently to the UK, looked suspicious.
The Judge’s Take
Judge Michael Magee sat at the decision in Bury St Edmunds, a fair and roughly neutral court. He pointed out that there wasn’t a clear rule in the company forbidding personal internet use. In fact, Ms Krauze herself used the work computer for many personal tasks.
He also said that the recorded time was “not excessive.” The employee’s usage was short and mainly for learning. He clarified that no prior disciplinary card had been given to Lanuszka. A quick look at policy statements, or the lack of them, suggested there was a gap in the system that the boss could not justify dismissing.
Why All This Matters
For Employers
It shows it is crucial to have a clear IT policy and workplace usage rules. Employers must clearly spell out:
Missing or vague guidelines open the door to accusations like “I was fired unfairly.” And guessing about the lack of a policy can lead to a loss of trust, legal trouble, and bad gossip. Use a simple, friendly rule that says:
Personal use is allowed during lunch breaks, commutes, or after work, as long as it’s a quick swipe.Employers should put any such policy into a written handbook and let everyone sign it. It keeps all parties on the same wavelength and protects the company from a lawsuit.
For Employees
If you’re in a role where technology is tracked or you suspect that computers may be spying on you, ask:
Knowing the answer protects you. Even if an employer doesn’t enforce a rule, you still have rights from the law. If you are told you are being fired for “Internet use,” you must know whether the time is truly excessive or if the company has a policy that forbids personal browsing.
Shine Light on The Illegal Tale
The tribunal found that the personal browsing was short and mainly for continuing learning. That is not an excuse for firing. In addition, the boss’s own personal use suggests a lack of consistency. And the diary records were smudged with timelines that were forged in the last year. This is suspicious behavior.
Moreover, the timing of the dismissal seconded by a business move that cut off her future protections, it goes back to the two‑year rule – a step that the boss looked to avoid. This added another layer that could turn an “expunge” into an unfair dismissal.
So What Should You Do?
For Business Owners
For Employees
A Word of Caution for Everyone
The Lanuszka case is a reminder among Brits that rule‑making matters. Having a wrong policy or not clearly communicating the policy is like having a “draft law” that can be used against that employee. In that case, you have the opportunity to show that you followed the correct city or local guidelines. For your business, it’s not just about compliance, but about showing fairness. Longevity of a relationship is built on trust and the idea that if an employee isn’t clear about a policy, they are going to be at risk they have no job safety net.
The case also reminds the city that under UK law, two years of service is a de facto threshold for bonuses, benefits, and legal remedies. Firing before this moment can look like a direct attempt to avoid the law and is sometimes taken as an example of status wrongdoing.
Finally, a clear communications move goes a long way: ask people to confirm the policy, talk through how often they will check usage, and politely refer to the employee handbook. That can avoid odd events like the one raised by Ms. Lanuszka. It will keep the business polite, the employee safe, and the law satisfied.
The Bottom Line
In the last months, we see a lot of judgments that follow the same pattern: The employer’s policy wasn’t clear, the ministry got wrong from the shelf, and the employee’s simple past browsing made him or her the victim of a bad dismissal. That can be avoided big time if both sides are on the same page about expectations and usage.
When we look at any current situation like Ms Lanuszka and her company, we can ask ourselves:
If we see no tracks or no mention, the dismissal can be called “fired unfairly.”
On the other side, a company will want to keep a short policy, giving the employee some leeway for personal browsing, and all of that will be in a handbook that participants sign.
That’s what this case helps us realize, and it’s the way we can all learn the lesson to stay safer: Get clarity, keep it simple, be honest.