Employment Tribunal Rejects GTA 6 Developers' Relief Bid

The Glasgow Employment Tribunal has rejected an application for interim relief filed on behalf of former Grand Theft Auto 6 developers. The decision concerns 34 employees dismissed from Rockstar Games late last year.

Rockstar Games welcomed the ruling, stating it reinforces their stance that the terminations were necessary due to leaking confidential information. The developers sought emergency support while awaiting a full employment tribunal. The tribunal's decision focuses on the validity of the dismissal reasons presented by the company.

The Glasgow Employment Tribunal released the outcome of the hearing today, rejecting all applications for interim relief. This legal mechanism would have allowed workers to return to the payroll and have work visas reinstated while waiting for a full hearing. Rockstar Games issued a statement confirming they stand by their course of action.

A Rockstar Games spokesperson stated: "We welcome the decision, which is consistent with Rockstar’s position throughout. We regret that we were put in a position where dismissals were necessary, but we stand by our course of action as supported by the outcome of this hearing."

The company has insisted that the employees were dismissed because they leaked game features for upcoming and unannounced titles in a Discord server. Rockstar maintains this was not related to unionization efforts. The dismissals included 31 employees in the UK and three in Canada.

In the ruling, Judge Eccles provided specific reasons for rejecting the interim relief application. The judge noted that of the approximately 350 members of the Discord server in question, over half were members of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB). However, some members were no longer employed by Rockstar Games at the time of the hearing.

Crucially, Judge Eccles highlighted that Rockstar dismissed three employees in Canada who were not members of the union. The ruling indicates that because these non-union employees were also fired, union membership could not have been a factor in their dismissal. Consequently, the judge believes the IWGB is not "likely" to show that union activity was the reason for the terminations.

Rockstar has denied having a "blacklist" of union members. The company stressed that at the time of the dismissals, they did not know whether the claimants were union members, making targeted discrimination impossible.

The core of the dispute centers on what constitutes a leak. Lord John Hendy KC, representing the fired developers, argued that sharing confidential information in a group containing external third parties did not constitute "gross misconduct." He suggested there was at best only a "risk" of leak, not an actual leak.

Rockstar Games countered this claim, stating that posting confidential information in a public forum constitutes a leak because the data was shared with people outside the company. This included individuals who work at competitors and with journalists. Rockstar believes the leaked information was significant, involving:

• Specific GTA 6 game features
• Comments on the overall progress of development
• Timelines to launch
• Company IT security protocols

The company noted that such leaks could affect Take-Two's share price, citing a $3.75 billion market value drop when the game's delay was officially announced. Rockstar also highlighted its zero-tolerance approach, referencing previous dismissals of employees in Lincoln, the U.S., and India for similar offenses.

The IWGB issued a statement expressing disappointment with the interim relief decision but remains confident for the full hearing. The union claims to have seen "flimsy grounds for defence" from Rockstar. The union highlighted that the judge noted there was "no evidence of the respondent having suffered any adverse consequences as a result of these postings."

Furthermore, the IWGB pointed out procedural issues during the firing process. The union stated that the ruling highlighted many broken procedural guidelines, including:

• No disciplinary meetings held
• No chance for appeal until six weeks later
• No evidence of an investigation
• Use of "covert monitoring" to obtain comments

Despite the setback, the IWGB noted that interim relief is an incredibly high bar to meet, especially for a group of this size, and views the hearing as a step toward the full substantive tribunal.