Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Bullying and Harassment Conflict Employment Law Harassment Sexual Harassment

Widening the law on harassment — It’s not all about sexual harassment

Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire [2024] EAT169 related to a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin who was working at the University and resigned during her probationary period, bringing a number of claims.

Amongst those claims, was a harassment claim on the ground of race. Her complaint arose out of comments around her accent which was very strong and made it difficult for her to be understood. These comments were found by the original Tribunal not to be harassment, on the basis that they were not motivated by race but were instead discussing her comprehensibility when communicating orally.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this finding, holding that looking for a motivation was wrong. Whilst treatment can be related to a protected characteristic where it is “because of” it, it can also occur where the alleged harasser is not motivated by the characteristic at all.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that an accent can be an important part of somebody’s national or ethnic identity and criticising their accent could therefore be related to the protected characteristic of race, and violate that person’s dignity.

This case confirms the position that the test for being “related to” a protected characteristic can be satisfied by establishing an objective link between the conduct and characteristic, without the need for the conduct to be motivated by the characteristic. This makes it much wider than the “because of” or “reason why” test which applies in direct discrimination claims.

Employers need to train managers to make sure that they understand that picking somebody up on what might be a challenging accent to understand, is likely to get them into difficulty.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Communication Conflict Dispute Management Employment Law

Respect in the workplace goes both ways

Happy New Year.

I am in the middle of preparing a training session on ‘respect in the workplace’. Naturally in that session we will be discussing what ‘respect’ means and looks like on a daily basis for the delegates.

I have been reflecting on the trend I have been seeing where certain individuals behaviours are overstepping the mark. For example:

  • They might have a grievance against the organisation but write quite toxic emails to the manager concerned.
  • These might be sent at night, early hours of the morning or at weekends or when they know a manager is on holiday.
  • Typically these emails demand a somewhat immediate response from the recipient.
  • The behaviour gets worse if the person perceives that the manager has not responded fast enough.
  • The sender is undoubtedly dumping all their emotions about something on the recipient.
  • The emails can be above average in length. A recent example of this was a manager having a meeting with someone following normal management processes on a Friday afternoon. Cue a 26 page ‘grievance’ the next day, a Saturday.

All of this might fall within what Acas calls ‘extreme difficult behaviour’. All of those who work in this space have become inured to having the odd one – we used to joke about that one personnel file that outpaced all others.

However, this is becoming more normalised. I think this is because of the general themes outside of work of expressing your views on social media, a more polarised world and people post pandemic being wrapped up in only thinking about themselves.

What is clear is this is not healthy for the recipient of this. One manager I have been liaising with mentioned her hair falling out as a result of dealing with ‘that’ person. We all get triggered when we see the name of the person who is doing this flash on our phones/inboxes.

Upward bullying is a thing. I’ve even witnessed people doing this to judges! What we are not great at is setting boundaries about this and putting some controls in place. I am struggling with this as much as you. What can we do?

The things I have thought of are:

  • Have a short policy on expectations around answering emails so it is clear what out of hours rules and KPIs on response times are.
  • Communicate to staff eg:- in newsletters that you expect all communications to be respectful and polite.
  • Be brave enough to call out the person being toxic – this becomes a performance management issue. You would be saying you are entitled to raise XYZ issue but not in the manner that you have.
  • Include in email footers the organisation policy that any email which is not respectful in tone will not be dealt with and then if people send problematic correspondence draw their attention to why they are not receiving a response.
  • Empower managers not to feel they have to put up with inappropriate behaviour – not encouraging cross grievances but saying it is OK to say when you are finding it hard to deal with something, speak out and we’ll agree a strategy.
  • Amend bullying policies specifically around this kind of behaviour – communicate that inappropriate emails won’t be tolerated
  • Write to warn people of the Protection from Harassment Act and that their behaviour could be tipping over into this.
  • Have a system of escalating upward bullying to a anti-bullying tsar who would step in and say disciplinary action could be taken if behaviour isn’t modified? Often the threat puts someone in their box.

Any other ideas?.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Bullying and Harassment Conflict Duty of Care Employment Law Harassment

Video | Anti-bullying week 2023

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch the video that Anna has recorded to mark Anti-Bullying Week 2023. Anna discusses her thoughts on, and the various issues around bullying in the workplace.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Conflict Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Part-Time Working

Video | Employees with second jobs, part 2

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing employees with second jobs. This is our second video on this topic this year – the first video led to some healthy debates on the subject and we felt there was a need for a second video with the aim of clarifying the position on why employers might want to restrict somebody from having a second job for the benefit of employers and employees. We hope that you find it useful.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Conflict Disciplinary Dismissal Employment Contract Employment Law Grievance HR

Employees bringing employers into disrepute

A recent case that went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal highlights important issues for employers. The case of London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v Keable involved a local authority Public Protection and Safety Officer within the Environmental Health Department with 17 years’ service dismissed for serious misconduct arising out of comments he made at rallies outside parliament. The employee concerned had been filmed having conversations. That video made itself online without his knowledge or consent. He didn’t do anything to link his employment to the video. As a result of it being widely re-tweeted, he was publicly identified as the local authority’s employee.

The employee was an anti-Zionist and a member of the Labour Party and Momentum organiser who was attending the rally in his own personal time. The comments he was filmed making included controversial statements alleging the Zionist movement, prior to World War II, collaborated with the Nazis.

The Tribunal found that the videos were calm, reasonable, non-threatening and conversational. The employee explained that he didn’t intend to offend anyone – it was a private conversation involving an exchange of political opinions carried out between two people willingly.

A local councillor wrote to the employer calling for action against the employee so he was suspended and a disciplinary procedure was followed that led to his dismissal.

The employer acknowledged that the employee had freedom of assembly and expression which included a right to offend others (human rights). However, it found that his comments were likely to be perceived as unlawfully hostile on religious grounds and so brought the employer into disrepute. The Dismissing Officer didn’t find the employee had been guilty of discrimination or anti-Semitism but did find that “a reasonable person would conclude that the claimant had said that the Zionists had colluded with the holocaust”.

At the Employment Tribunal, whilst the Claimant’s conduct was potentially a fair reason for dismissal, procedurally the employer was found wanting – in particular:

  1. The employee had not been informed of the specific allegation which led to his dismissal; and
  2. The possibility of a lesser sanction of a warning wasn’t discussed with him.

The Tribunal found that he should be reinstated.

Whilst the case illustrates the sorts of issues employers are now getting embroiled in around social media and freedom of expression, what caught my eye was the basic weakness in the employer’s procedure ie:- that what the employee was accused of didn’t tally with what the decisionmaker ultimately dismissed him for. This isn’t uncommon. Often the allegations are framed at the stage where an employee is perhaps suspended pending investigation or a statement is made that covers a multitude, such as “your conduct in being filmed and the making of comments”. The disciplinary invite letter might be prepared centrally by HR from a template without any real liaison with the person who is potentially going to be making the disciplinary decision. There is always room for error here and before writing the disciplinary letter the writer should be thinking ahead to the evidence and what it does/doesn’t prove.

In this case, the employee quite reasonably asked which of his comments that had been recorded was offensive as this is what had been put in his invitation letter. The decisionmaker was thinking instead about the case in terms of his having suggested Zionists collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust – that was not put to the employee. The Tribunal easily found it was outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss somebody for misconduct which hadn’t been put to them as part of the investigation or disciplinary process.

What can you do about this?

If the decisionmaker, having heard all of the evidence, wants to frame the outcome in a different way to the disciplinary allegations in the invitation letter, they should pause the process. They should then invite the employee to a further meeting to discuss the fresh allegation that they wish to consider and it may well be a relatively short meeting given all of the discussions that have already been held but it will be as important for the employee to be accompanied at the meeting as normal. They should then come to their decision.

Compensation was reduced by 10% because of the employee’s culpable conduct in making critical comments about the investigation report.

The employer appealed. Interestingly the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that it was procedurally unfair to not have raised with the claimant whether a warning was appropriate. Any employee, when questioned, would always say that a warning was preferable to dismissal! This is stretching the requirements of the ACAS Code of Practice. Yes, an employer should consider the appropriate lesser sanction as an alternative to dismissal but it is not a pre-requisite to consult the employee about that…

The safest thing to do is, routinely in disciplinary hearings, consider whether a warning would be an appropriate sanction and be seen to explain why it wouldn’t.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Confidentiality Conflict Data Protection Act 2018 Data Use and Access Act 2025 Disclosure Employment Law Video

Video | Employees sending information from their employer to themselves

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing the issues that could arise when an employee sends themselves emails or information from their employer to themselves.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Conflict Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Part-Time Working Video

Video | Employees being overemployed

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing the issues that may arise and what employers can do when an employee might have more than one job at the same time and ends up in a situation where they are overemployed.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Communication Conflict COVID-19 Disciplinary Employment Law Grievance Investigations Return to Work Stress Victimisation

Why we might be seeing more conflict and mistakes

You may have noticed some of the following since the pandemic:

• People getting more upset than “normal” over something relatively trivial.
• People having a very emotional reaction to something they are asked to do, for example, returning to the office.
• An increase in conflict in situations where previously this would have been less likely to happen and employees being less resilient.

There is a brain science explanation for all of this. We have at brain chemistry level, been living within an environment of constant and invisible threat for 18 months. During a situation of stress such as this, the limbic system goes into overdrive and more complex parts of our brain such as the prefrontal cortex are used less.

This all makes sense in an emergency: we need our brains to focus to enable us to deal with the threat. For example, I had somebody drive into the back to me recently at speed while I was stationary in the car. The limbic brain function enables you to calmly deal with the situation but in that state it becomes much harder for us to think rationally, deal with complicated decisions and we become error prone.

This might also explain why, if you are feeling that you are just trying to do something relatively straight forward that you have always done but for some reason it feels more challenging than previously. We overloaded the system. I always remember a junior doctor talking about how they coped with their very long shift working and all that their job brought with it but would burst into tears when they found that the toothpaste had run out. It’s a perfect illustration of the pressure on our system, suppressing the prefrontal cortex and yet reacting emotionally, losing our tempers more and being unable to talk ourselves down in the way we would normally.

Normally the prefrontal cortex is able to talk to the limbic system essentially telling it to calm down and behave more rationally but if we are stressed, tired or sick then that becomes more difficult. We know how exhausted everyone is saying they are, particularly those who have worked in the front line or who have had to step up in other ways to see their organisation through the last 18 months, we can see why normality is being impaired.

This is why everybody feels a bit on edge but can’t really articulate why – it is normal when you’ve survived some kind of disaster.

The brain is immensely adaptable and will figure its way through this phase. It can even be a good thing where people will grow as a result of the experience, with the majority returning to functioning as they did before and a small proportion effectively experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. Researchers are even beginning to talk about the common outcome being long term resilience but for the meantime, what can we do?

We have to accept that a cohort of the workforce are feeling immense fatigue and have short levels of concentration or simply struggling to concentrate at all. We have to recognise when this is happening that it’s not necessarily a permanent state of affairs and that we need to provide support rather than go straight to performance managing out. It may even help to talk about this to get people to understand what is going on so that they accept their emotional state, rather than trying to fight against it. This reduces them being stressed about being stressed in the first place. It stops people dwelling and feeling increasingly negative. Dealing with what’s going on in a non-judgemental way can drag that prefrontal cortex back into the picture and give it a chance to quieten down the limbic system. If people are in a state of anxiety it can be quite easy to end up in a negative spiral where that becomes the dominant emotion.

When we are in a particular mental state we tend to dwell on the particular emotion that we are feeling and remember all of the other times that we have felt this way rather than all the other times when we haven’t felt this way. It may help people to understand that this is what happens and that dwelling on something more positive can help the brain chemistry.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Conflict COVID-19 Employment Law Mediation

Waiting for the conflict

Recently I have been commenting about the rising conflict that I am seeing in the workplace. This is unsurprising given some of the tensions that are around managing COVID-19 and the lessening of restrictions – the burden is being placed on employers to resolve the clashes that might emerge. If you haven’t already thought about these things, these are some of the issues that are arising:

  1. The clinically extremely vulnerable

The Government updated its advice to those who are clinically extremely vulnerable on 19 July 2021. If you recall, shielding advice was paused on 1 April 2021 but many in this category will have been protected by the instruction to largely work from home until now. Now advice is to continue with social distancing and suggests other precautions they might take, such as, only meeting others in well ventilated places, limiting contact to those who have been vaccinated, taking lateral flow tests before meetings and continuing social distancing.

When it comes to work, the guidance is that it is the employer’s legal responsibility to protect their employees from risks to their health and safety, setting out that “your employer should be able to explain to you the measures that they have in place to keep you safe at work”. (So no different to any employee then…).

It then cross-refers to the HSE Guidance on Protecting Vulnerable Workers which includes older males, those with a high body mass index, those with health conditions such as diabetes and those from Black, Asian or Minority Ethnicity backgrounds. They encourage employers to continue to use the furlough scheme if an employee can’t work from home. They go on to explain how you can support workers working from home.

It is interesting that the guidance tells employees specifically that if they have got concerns about their health and safety at work that they can raise them with their union, the HSE or the local authority. Rather unhelpfully, it doesn’t encourage the employee to raise concerns with their employer first before contacting their union or HSE… I am definitely seeing an increase in employees referring things to the HSE anyway.

In Wales, the guidance remains that if somebody is clinically extremely vulnerable then they should continue to work from home if possible but that they can return to work if the workplace is COVID secure. In particular, the employer is advised to talk to the employee as soon as possible about how they are being kept safe, they should put in place 2 metre distances between colleagues, they need a risk assessment, taking into account the individual’s risk factors. The guidance again encourages the use of the furlough scheme.

With the lifting of restrictions in England in particular, there is a cohort of those who are vulnerable or live with someone who is very worried about the measures that are currently in place, who may well be suffering with heightened anxiety in relation to these developments. There is the potential for this issue to clash with others in the workplace, who have less understanding or empathy and for differences to emerge.

It is important to remember that those who are clinically extremely vulnerable are likely to be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and the duty to make reasonable adjustments will apply. It is worth noting that the Access to Work Scheme was updated last year so that if there are employees with a physical or mental health condition who need to work from home as a result of the pandemic, support can be accessed, for example, to buy equipment, pay for extra travel costs if they are unable to use public transport safely, or for protective equipment. There is a 9 month period within which to make a claim for such costs.

  1. Vaccination status

There is a potential for conflict to arise between those who have received the vaccine or believe in the importance of the vaccine and those who don’t or those who have been vaccinated and may now feel invincible and those waiting to get to that place. This could lead to dealing with grievances with employees who do not wish to be vaccinated who feel classed as discriminated against if the employer puts in place guidelines in relation to vaccination. It is worth noting that on 13 July 2021, the Government published a raft of information for employers expecting them to encourage people who haven’t been vaccinated to do so, suggesting how they might do that. Surveys have consistently shown that large numbers of employees are uncomfortable having to work with those who haven’t been vaccinated. You can see the tension that lies ahead. Things may also get worse if people have strong feelings on a subject and vociferously share their views. Employees also pick up these things by seeing each other’s Facebook posts and Tweets.

  1. Pregnant workers

There is a myth circulating that somebody who is pregnant cannot be vaccinated. If you look at the UK Public Health Guidance on this, including evidence in the Lancet, the Guidance is actually that pregnant workers should still be vaccinated. Initially, previous Government advice was that pregnant shouldn’t be vaccinated but this was updated on 16 April 2021.

Employers have special obligations as soon as they know that a worker is pregnant, to undertake risk assessments in respect of that person anyway. Of course, this is heightened due to the pandemic. Again, there may be a cohort of workers who have heightened anxiety and are less tolerant of what they may see as unsafe actions of colleagues.

An employer has the legal obligation under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to alter a pregnant employees working conditions or hours to avoid any significant risk. Where it is not possible to do that or where alterations to conditions or hours wouldn’t avoid the risk, the employer is expected to offer suitable alternative work on terms that are no less favourable and if that isn’t possible, then there is a legal obligation under Section 16(3) of those Regulations and Section 67 of the Employment Rights Act to suspend the employee on full pay. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives in conjunction with the Government and the HSE was last updated on 21 June 2021 and reiterates the importance of risk assessments and provide a number of recommendations including – “we advise all employers to be cognisant of that Guidance and apply it”.

As pregnant women are identified as clinically vulnerable in the Social Distancing Guidance, where the nature of their role means they can’t work from home and there isn’t any suitable alternative work that they could do from home, the employer should be suspending that employee on full pay, if workplace risks can’t be sufficiently mitigated. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights Guidance also suggests that requiring pregnant employees to continue to work in frontline roles could amount to indirect discrimination because of sex.

  1. Those who are suffering from anxiety

These are people who are experiencing higher levels of anxiety than they would have pre-pandemic. In particular, those who have led a more sheltered life for the last year and a half and even the most simple things we have got out of the habit of doing become more stressful. We need to be more gentle with those who are being asked to return to the workplace who haven’t been there for a long time. You must remember that there are those who have lost loved ones or friends to COVID and tolerance levels of the way in which other people behave or are perceived to behave in relation to, for example, wearing masks and social distancing can become a cause of tension or conflict.

In some cases that “normal” anxiety can actually become something more and if the employee has a diagnosed medical condition or something that hasn’t yet been diagnosed and it is severely limiting their ability to do normal day to day things, we are moving into disability territory again, meaning your requirement to make reasonable adjustments kicks in. You need to get medical advice. I am constantly seeing cases where an employee tells their employer something like “I’m anxious” and then criticises them for not taking steps to tackle that issue. I sometimes see a myth amongst line managers that an employee needs to ask for reasonable adjustments – that isn’t the case, the duty is on the employer irrespective of whether the employee is suggesting an adjustment or not.

  1. Tension between different groups

The latest announcement that some workers who have been pinged by the NHS App and are otherwise isolating for 10 days but can go to work in social care and healthcare settings is only going to make this worse. If I was a colleague I wouldn’t want to be working with that person…

  1. Holidays

With the UK Government officially giving the green light to international travel in May 2021 and with the traffic light system reflecting COVID risks in different countries, staff will undoubtedly have strong opinions on colleagues who are visiting amber list countries (and red list countries where they have an essential reason such as a family bereavement). Colleagues won’t necessarily know the vaccination status of a colleague or whether or not they should be isolating. Countries are also moving between where they are on the list such as Portugal which moved from Green to Amber. The rules are quite different in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and with a nuance there is undoubtedly room for friction. It is very difficult for an employer to forbid an employee to leave the country in their own time, to visit locations that the Government is permitting them to. We don’t even have the right to require the employee to tell us where they are going. We suggest that this is laid down in policy documents. For example, you may state that leave requested for international travel will not be accepted and may be cancelled if discovered at a later date and explain why these rules are put in place. Employees need to understand clearly what the position is if they are quarantining without symptoms (they won’t get SSP and unless they are able to work from home, they will not be paid).

If there was a theme in all the different grievances I have on my desk at the moment, one thread would be that it probably became apparent early on that there was conflict and tension between different employees, and the matter has been ignored or not given the attention that could have prevented it getting worse.

Everybody has been doing everything on Zoom and Teams and we are facing a reluctance to talk now to anybody properly about anything – the most important tool that can be deployed to prevent grievances escalating is a good old fashioned conversation. A conversation that involves listening to everybody’s perspective. There is huge value in people feeling listened to and heard – you can signal that to somebody by playing back to them what it is you have taken from what they have just said, using their own words, acknowledging if they have expressed how they feel about it.

A powerful question that can be asked in those scenarios is “how would you like us to resolve this?”. That puts the onus onto the individual concerned to come up with a solution and not just be having a whinge about something. Quite often when you ask people this question, they are sensible in what they say, perhaps it’s an apology that they were looking for or perhaps it’s an acknowledgement of what they have been through or feel.

Because the potential costs in terms of time and energy converted into dealing with grievances is so huge, before you even think about asking for legal advice, we really do need to be investing in the skills that managers need in order to have these conversations.

Details of training packages that we offer in this regard are available on request. Please email: adenton@refreshinglawltd.co.uk for more information.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Communication Confidentiality Conflict Disciplinary Disclosure Dispute Management Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Grievance HR Investigations Privacy Procedural Fairness

Showing the complaint to the employee

You will be familiar with the idea that in a disciplinary process the person who is accused of wrongdoing should hear the case against them or should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in support of that case so that they are given the opportunity to criticise or dispute that evidence and put forward their own arguments. This comes from a case of Spink -v- Express Foods Limited 1990.  But what about the situation where there is a grievance investigation?

The Acas Code is silent on this issue but focuses instead on the person who has raised the complaint. However, as part of the investigation into the complaints that that person has raised, you will need to interview anyone that they have accused of wrongdoing.  For example, there may be an allegation of bullying and harassment.

One option would be to simply show the person, perhaps the line manager, the grievance letter. This is the most open and transparent position and one would hope that any line manager would behave professionally, see the grievance for what it is, and be prepared to answer those allegations in full. This position accords with the concept of ‘natural justice’ – nothing is being hidden and the accused has full opportunity to have their input to what is being said about them.

However, there may be cases where there is a concern that to take this open position would perhaps inflame or fundamentally damage the working relationship between the person who has raised the grievance and, for example, their line manager. The investigator may feel that a better approach would be to not show the full letter to the person who has been accused but rather to take them through the contents of the letter through a process of questioning so that they still have full opportunity to answer what is being said, but perhaps in doing this they can soften the language a little and take some of the ‘heat’ out of the matter.  If the investigator does go down this route they will need to be skilled in questioning and make sure that they do give the full picture to the person so that they are being fair to everybody.  For example, it wouldn’t be appropriate to just say ‘what happened on 5th August?’ You would need to go further and ask ‘Joe Bloggs has stated that there was an argument between the two of you on 5th August. He has said that your voice was raised and that other people noticed that you were shouting.  Is that true?’

If the complainant’s letter refers to complaints against a number of different people then, again, it may be sensible to separate out the allegations so that you are only interviewing an individual about those matters that are relevant to them.

In any event, if the individual (for example, the line manager) is named in a grievance letter, strictly speaking, under the Data Protection Act, they can make a Subject Access Request requesting to see the contents of the letter.  For that reason, again, the employer may want to choose the most open position.

It could also be damaging, as regards the relationship between the employer and the person who has been accused (such as the line manager), if the employer does not disclose the contents of a grievance letter. The line manager may feel that something is being hidden or that they are not being given a full opportunity to answer the case against them, even though at this stage there is no hint of a disciplinary.

The employer will need to carefully weigh all of these issues before deciding how to proceed.  If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law