Tribunal Condemns ‘Inept and Misjudged’ Workplace Bullying Investigation

Employers who fail to conduct workplace disciplinary proceedings fairly risk serious financial and reputational consequences. In one case, a company’s handling of a bullying investigation was roundly condemned as a catalogue of ineptitude and misjudgment.

The case concerned a business…

Aug 11, 2021

Pexels cowomen 2041629 1024x683

Employers who fail to conduct workplace disciplinary proceedings fairly risk serious financial and reputational consequences. In one case, a company’s handling of a bullying investigation was roundly condemned as a catalogue of ineptitude and misjudgment.

The case concerned a business development manager who was accused of bullying a subordinate. Whilst accepting that she could sometimes be abrupt, she denied that she was a bully or that she had any intention to cause distress. She was dismissed following a lengthy investigatory and disciplinary process.

After she launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled that her summary dismissal, without notice, was wrongful. The evidence was entirely consistent with her inadvertently having caused stress to the subordinate. Given the lack of any proof of malign intent on her part, her conduct did not meet the employer’s policy definition of bullying and thus did not amount to gross misconduct.

The ET made numerous criticisms of the conduct of the investigatory and disciplinary process. In rejecting her unfair dismissal claim, however, it found that the decision-maker genuinely believed that she had behaved inappropriately. The ET was just persuaded that it fell within the band of reasonable responses for the company to consider that the process was, in the circumstances, adequate.

Upholding her challenge to that ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that it was one of those rare cases where an ET had reached a perverse conclusion. Given the catalogue of failings identified, there was no basis on which a reasonable ET could find that the process fell within a reasonable band. Subject to any submissions to the contrary, the EAT ruled that the unfair dismissal claim should be remitted to the same ET for reconsideration.

Whistleblowing and the Public Interest – Guideline EAT Ruling

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling. Whilst working for a law firm as a consultant, a solicitor made disclosures in the form of emails in which he expressed the view that a client was being overcharged. After his consultancy was terminated, he complained to an Employment Tribunal (ET)…

Company That Labelled Employees as Self-Employed Receives Comeuppance

Many businesses that persist in labelling their employed staff as self-employed have met their comeuppance during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was certainly so in the case of a company that was ordered to pay compensation of more than £50,000 to a woman who was sacked after asserting her colleagues’ employment rights. The company ran a beauty salon at which the woman was engaged to work as PA to the founder and to provide treatments. Her contract was labelled as a consultancy agreement. When the…

HSE Encourages Employers to Tackle Workplace Stress

As part of its Working Minds campaign, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has called on employers to support workers’ mental health during Stress Awareness Month. Employers are encouraged to focus on one of the campaign’s five Rs for each week of April. These are:Reach out and have conversations; Recognise the signs and causes of stress; Respond to any risks you have identified; Reflect on actions you have agreed and taken; and Make it Routine.Employers are legally required to prevent…