Category: Grievance

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

Employees bringing employers into disrepute

View of the City of London at sunset

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
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

View of the City of London at sunset

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
Anna Denton-Jones Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Gender Inclusivity Grievance Maternity Parental Rights Protected Characteristics Video

Video | Sending a pregnant worker home

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing the issues that arose in a recent case that went to a Tribunal in Manchester in relation to a company sending a pregnant worker home during the pandemic.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Dispute Management Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Grievance Investigations Victimisation

Dangers of a victimisation claim

Royal Courts of Justice, London

A recent case illustrates the risk employers face every time they receive a grievance in relation to a victimisation complaint.

If the grievance has any kind of discrimination angle to it, bullying harassment or an argument about less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic or an allegation that the employer has failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a health issue, the employer also runs the risk of a victimisation complaint.

The raising of the grievance, if it references the protected characteristic and allegations of some form of discrimination, becomes a “protected act”. If, as a result of that protected act, the employee then suffers some other detriment, this will give them grounds to claim victimisation.

This can be as simple as suffering the consequences of colleagues knowing that a grievance has been raised and behaving differently towards the person who has raised the grievance as a result. For example, a manager who has been accused may be very angry about the accusation that has been made or other colleagues who are interviewed as witnesses in the grievance process might change their behaviour towards the individual, “sending them to Coventry” or even telling them that they agree with what the employee has done. One of the first mediations that I was ever involved with, involved this scenario where a colleague clearly felt a manager didn’t deserve to be criticised by the other employee who had raised a grievance.

A recent case that illustrated this, was a case against Online Travel Training Group Ltd by Mr Weinreb. He was a Business Development Manager and had some kind of altercation with a Finance Manager after asking for her help. It sounds as though the Finance Manager didn’t like the employee and felt he should have known how to do the things he was asking for help with. The Tribunal felt that she goaded him and created conflict. Another colleague implied Mr Weinreb had been Jewish during a discussion about team work, and he also alleged that a conversation about the gay dating app ‘Grinder’ implied his colleagues thought he was a closet homosexual.

The case ended up in cross-grievances – the Finance Manager raised a grievance against Mr Weinreb because he recorded a conversation held about his commission. Mr Weinreb raised a grievance alleging discrimination and complaining about how an employment review meeting had been held.

Faced with the cross-grievance, the Managing Director missed the opportunity to go to a mediator and really get to the bottom of what was going on between the two individuals. Instead the pair were told that they should only communicate with each other by email (Tip: never go down that route).

Matters were investigated but played down – the Finance Manager was reminded of her obligation to show respect to her colleagues. Mr Weinreb attended a Grievance Outcome Meeting with the Managing Director who sounds like she lost her temper. At one point, she banged on the desk and told Mr Weinreb that she was very upset and offended by his allegations of discrimination about his colleagues (Tip: never do this!).

Mr Weinreb clearly didn’t feel listened to and this is a very important part of any grievance process and so appealed the grievance outcome.

The company subsequently dismissed Mr Weinreb for his “unacceptable conduct”. The Managing Director felt that his allegations had been spurious.

The banging on the table at the grievance outcome and failure to give Mr Weinreb any details about why his employment was being terminated were the acts of victimisation in this particular case. It was found that the Managing Director would not have behaved in the way that she had, had the employee not complained of discrimination in the first place.

Since employers are vulnerable to the emotional responses of those accused in grievances and those around them, it is very important that employers must always make it clear to those involved that any mistreatment of the employee who has raised a grievance will, in itself, be a disciplinary issue and that they are alert to their behaviour so that they can take action when necessary.

Refreshing Law
3 June 2021

Categories
Acas Anna Denton-Jones Disclosure Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Grievance Investigations

Does an employer have to disclose the investigation report?

View of the City of London at sunset

At first glance, one might think the answer to this question was rather obvious, in that the employee raising the grievance is going to want to see that the investigation has been done thoroughly and fairly in order to be able to accept that the employer is following the correct processes based on the evidence.  Indeed, if you didn’t disclose these papers to the employee, it is likely to foster distress and further antagonise what may already be the steps on the way to a breakdown in trust and confidence between the parties.

Having said that, are there circumstances in which you can decline to show the employee parts of the evidence?  It is worth noting that the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to grievance procedures does not grant a specific “right” to the employee to see witness statements or any evidence that is part of an investigation.  

The employer is likely to be having to balance the rights of the employee against the rights of others who have also been named in the report, and to whom it may also owe duties such as  confidentiality, if that were the only basis on which it could obtain evidence.

The ACAS Guide to Conducting Workplace Investigations states “if an individual wishes to see a report they have been named in, they have got a right to see any parts of the report that contains information about them or that is reliant on information they have provided”.  That makes sense because they may want to correct a mistake that you have made in quoting them or if they disagree with an interpretation that has been made by the investigator. The ACAS Guidance goes onto say “however, they should not be allowed to see private information belonging to other individuals”. Thus, you would not necessarily be disclosing to them the entire report.  It may be that in sensitive cases, where perhaps co-operation in an investigation has only been able to be obtained by witnesses being promised anonymity, certain parts of the report/statements would have to be redacted.  In such circumstances, it may be that you change the names and other identifying information to, for example, numbers or letters, say witness B etc.

Ultimately, it is down to the employer to decide what the best thing to do is in each case and we would recommend that the rationale for acting in a particular way is recorded at the relevant time, so that if it is challenged later, at appeal or through the Tribunal, there is a record of the decision-making process.

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

View of the City of London at sunset

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

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Grievance HR Investigations Unfair Dismissal

Three ways to protect yourself against employee claims

Royal Courts of Justice, London

Ultimately, no employer can prevent employees from attempting to bring employment related claims against them. However there are things you can do to protect yourself and put you in a strong position.

  • Firstly and most importantly, put yourself in the employees shoes and think about how you would want to be treated. If you follow that common sense rule you shouldn’t go too far wrong. For example, you are likely to investigate the situation thoroughly, listen to all sides including the employee before making a decision and not jump to conclusions.

Canny employers may draft a provision into the contract of employment enabling them to suspend an employee pending an investigation. This protects the business for example, a disgruntled employee cannot then contact customers or destroy computer evidence relevant to the investigation.

Secondly, follow a procedure.  For unfair dismissal purposes you have to show that not only did you have a good reason to dismiss (such as the person being incapable of doing their job or guilty of misconduct) but you have to show that you have acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances. The ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance should be the  touchstone here as Employment Tribunals judge you by the standards set out in it and expect you to be familiar with it. It also contains handy flowcharts.

Thirdly, whilst employees are entitled to bring a companion along to a meeting in which they are dismissed (a colleague or trade union official) you may also want to take a witness along. This person could help you take notes of the meeting but is also there to protect you as they can confirm you acted fairly, if challenged.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law