There’s a Big Difference Between Assertive Management and Bullying

There is all the difference in the world between an assertive management style and one that descends into aggressive bullying. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, employers who fail to take effective steps to stamp out the latter behaviour expose themselves to severe reputational and…

Oct 03, 2022

The case focused on the stormy relationship between a charity employee and her line manager. Matters came to a head at a meeting when the line manager was seen to become confrontational, shouting at the employee. He pointed his finger at her, threw back his chair and stormed from the room, slamming the door behind him. The tension between them persisted for an extended period thereafter and culminated in the employee’s resignation whilst on sick leave, suffering from stress.

In upholding her complaint of unfair constructive dismissal, the ET found that the line manager’s aggressive behaviour at the meeting was extreme and unwarranted. It was surprising that he was neither held accountable at the time nor, at the very least, asked to apologise to those at the meeting. Apparently emboldened by senior management’s inaction, his behaviour worsened thereafter and escalated during discussions about the employee’s role and the restructuring of his team.

The evidence appeared to demonstrate the employer’s ongoing tolerance of the line manager’s behaviour. Senior management’s failure to take firm action against him showed a lack of support for the employee over a sustained period, culminating in an apparent general lack of care for her welfare. She suffered a great deal of distress and her feeling that she had been let down by her employer was the ultimate reason for her resignation.

A long line of failures by the employer to deal properly with any grievances she raised against the line manager amounted to a failure to provide her with a suitable working environment. Those omissions contravened the relationship of trust and confidence that should exist between any employer and employee. If not agreed, the amount of the employee’s compensation would be assessed at a further hearing. However, the ET urged both sides to reach a settlement in the light of its ruling.

Houses in Multiple Occupation – A Cautionary Tale for Errant Landlords

Pressure on the housing market has led to the conversion of many redundant office buildings into flats and the number of such projects is likely to be greatly increased by shifting work patterns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. A Court of Appeal ruling, however, powerfully signalled that rules in respect of health, safety and living standards at such premises will be rigorously enforced. The case concerned an office block that had been converted into 47 flats. After a housing officer…

University Manager Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal/Disability Discrimination Claims

Redundancy processes that lack transparency or fail to pay particular regard to the position of disabled employees are highly likely to result in costly Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings. That was certainly so in the case of a university faculty manager who lost her job in the midst of a restructuring exercise. The woman suffered from depression and general anxiety disorder and was agreed to be disabled. With a view to cutting costs and achieving greater efficiency, the university decided to…

Women are More Likely to Bear Childcare Responsibilities – That’s a Fact

Judges do not operate in a vacuum and are entitled to take the view that some facts are so obvious that there is no requirement to prove them. In an important ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that that principle applies to the fact that women are more likely to bear childcare responsibilities than men. The case involved a community nurse who was primary carer for her three children, two of them disabled. Due to her responsibilities as a mother, she worked only on Wednesdays…