Tag: Employee

Categories
Beliefs Case Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Tribunal Equality Act 2010 Freedom of Speech Lousha Reynolds

Balancing Beliefs: Why the EAT Lister v New College Swindon judgement matters

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The UK employment law community is awaiting a pivotal decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): the judgement in Lister v New College Swindon.

Following a preliminary hearing in May 2025, this appeal is one of the most significant belief discrimination cases of the year. For employers, particularly those in the education and public sectors, the outcome will define the practical boundaries between an employee’s right to hold gender-critical beliefs and an employer’s duty to protect service users from harassment.

The Background: Where we left off

The original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision in March 2024 was a comprehensive victory for the employer. Kevin Lister, a maths lecturer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to use the preferred name and pronouns of a transitioning student (“Student A”).

The ET found that while Mr Lister’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 (following the precedent in Forstater), his manifestation of those beliefs was “objectionable.” Key factors included:

  • The power imbalance: Mr Lister was a teacher in a position of authority over a minor. 
  • The gender-neutral approach: Rather than using the student’s name, he gestured toward them, which the student found demeaning. 
  • Refusal to comply: During the disciplinary process, he maintained he would not change his behaviour, leaving the college with little choice but to dismiss him to prevent ongoing harm.

Why the appeal is critical

The EAT is now considering whether the first tribunal correctly applied the “boundary” between holding a belief and manifesting it. Mr Lister’s appeal argues that:

  1. The college’s gender reassignment policy was inherently discriminatory by requiring him to act against his conscience.
  2. The tribunal failed to properly balance his Article 9 (Freedom of Thought) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

For legal practitioners, the central question is whether an employer can mandate the use of preferred pronouns in a workplace or educational setting without it amounting to “compelled speech” or indirect discrimination.

What employers should watch for

This judgement will likely provide much-needed clarity on the “proportionality” test. We expect the EAT to address:

Key Issue Employer Consideration 
Manifestation vs. Belief At what point does expressing a belief become “manifestly objectionable” conduct? 
Policy Enforcement Can an employer fairly dismiss an employee solely for refusing to follow a “preferred pronoun” policy? 
Safeguarding Does the duty of care toward students/vulnerable groups trump an employee’s right to manifest their beliefs? 

Practical steps for HR and management

While we await the final word from the EAT, businesses should not remain static. We recommend:

  • Reviewing equality policies: Ensure your policies on gender reassignment and religion/belief are balanced. They should emphasise respect and dignity for all without appearing to indoctrinate or silence protected beliefs.
  • Training on clashing rights: Managers need to understand that two people can have competing protected characteristics. The goal is to manage the impact of the behaviour, not the belief itself.
  • Focus on proportionality: If an employee refuses to comply with a policy, consider whether a less severe sanction than dismissal is possible, unless, as in Lister’s case, the employee makes it clear they will never change their conduct.

Looking ahead

The Lister appeal arrives at a time of heightened sensitivity, following the Government’s long-awaited (and still debated) guidance on gender questioning children in schools. The EAT’s decision will serve as a lighthouse for how these complex, often emotive issues are handled in the tribunal system for years to come.

Do your current Equality and Diversity policies align with the latest EAT guidance?

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Disability Duty of Care Employment Law Equality Act 2010 Health and Safety HR Lousha Reynolds Mental Health Neurodiversity Reasonable Adjustments Risk Assessment Sick Pay Stress

Stress at Work: More than just a bad day

Woman with head in her hands leans over a desk with a laptop in front of her

As we mark Stress Awareness Week 2026, we’re looking at the legal framework that governs mental health in the UK workplace.

Stress isn’t just a HR issue. It’s a significant legal responsibility. Whether you’re managing a team or navigating your own workload, understanding the boundaries of the law is essential for a healthy, compliant work environment.

1. The legal duty of care

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. This isn’t limited to hard hats and trip hazards. It includes mental wellbeing, too.

  • Risk Assessments: Just as you’d assess the dangers of a faulty wire, you must assess the risk of work-related stress.
  • The Management Standards: The HSE (Health and Safety Executive) outlines six key areas that, if not managed, lead to poor health and reduced productivity: demands, control, support, relationships, role, and change.

2. When stress becomes a disability

While stress itself isn’t a disability, the effects of prolonged stress, such as clinical depression or anxiety disorders, often meet the criteria under the Equality Act 2010.

An employee is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a “substantial and long-term adverse effect” on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

What this means for employers:

  • If stress triggers a disability, you have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments. This might include:
    • Flexible working hours or “soft” start times.
    • Redistributing certain tasks to other team members.
    • Providing a quieter workspace or more frequent breaks.

3. Avoiding a personal injury claim

If an employer is aware (or ought to have been aware) that an employee is struggling and fails to act, they risk a claim for negligence. For a claim to succeed, the psychiatric injury must have been “reasonably foreseeable.”

The Red Flag Rule: If an employee tells you they’re struggling, or if their performance suddenly dips alongside signs of burnout, the clock starts ticking. Ignorance is rarely a valid legal defence once the signs are visible.

4. Practical steps for Stress Awareness Week

To stay on the right side of the law (and keep your team happy), consider these three actions:

ActionPurpose
Wellness Action Plans (WAPs)A proactive tool for employees to share what helps them stay well.
Training for ManagersEnsuring supervisors can spot signs of burnout before it becomes a grievance.
Open CommunicationReducing the stigma so employees feel safe raising issues early.

Work-related stress is often a symptom of systemic issues rather than individual weakness. By treating mental health with the same rigour as physical safety, UK businesses can avoid costly employment tribunals and, more importantly, foster a culture where people actually want to work. This year’s campaign, led by the Stress Management Society, focuses on the theme #BeTheChange, encouraging small, consistent, and positive actions. We think that’s a great place to start.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Equality Act 2010 Lousha Reynolds Neurodiversity Recruitment

Thinking Differently: Why neurodiversity is a workplace superpower

Collaborative meeting in an office around a table

With it being Neurodiversity Celebration Week (16th–20th March), we felt that it was time to move beyond awareness and start talking more about action.

In the UK, it’s estimated that around 1 in 7 people are neurodivergent. This includes ADHD, Autism, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, and Tourette’s, among others. For too long, recruitment processes and office environments have been designed around the “typical” brain. Often filtering out some of the most creative, analytical, and dedicated talent in the workforce.

From a British employment law perspective, supporting different ways of thinking is not only the right thing to do, but is also a legal requirement. To help business leaders and HR professionals, we’ve focused in on a few things to help better recognise and support neurodiversity at work.

Under the Equality Act 2010, many neurodivergent conditions meet the legal definition of a disability, where that condition has a substantial, adverse impact on the individual’s ability to carry out their normal daily activities. In such cases, this means that employees have a right to protection from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.

Crucially, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. This duty is “proactive,” meaning you shouldn’t wait for an employee to reach a breaking point before offering support. By fostering an environment where adjustments are normalised, you stay ahead of legal risks and, more importantly, help your team thrive.

2. Redefining “reasonable adjustments”

Support doesn’t always mean expensive equipment. Often, the most impactful changes cost nothing but a shift in mindset. Effective adjustments often include:

  • Environmental tweaks: Providing noise-cancelling headphones, adjustable lighting, or quiet zones for deep focus.
  • Communication shifts: Giving instructions in writing rather than just verbally or allowing for camera-off meetings to reduce sensory overload.
  • Flexibility: Allowing for flexible start and end times to avoid the sensory stress of peak-time commutes.

3. Rethinking recruitment

The traditional hour-long, face-to-face interview is often a test of social performance rather than job competency. To support different ways of thinking, we can look at:

  • Skills-based assessments: Letting candidates demonstrate what they can do rather than just what they can say.
  • Clear job descriptions: Removing jargon and fluff (like “must be a great multitasker”) if it isn’t essential to the role.

4. Moving from “culture fit” to “culture enhancement”

In corporate culture, we often talk about culture fit. However, this can inadvertently lead to mini-me hiring, where everyone thinks and acts the same way. 

To truly celebrate neurodiversity, we should look to add to our work culture. A neurodivergent employee might approach a problem from an angle no one else has considered. They might spot patterns others miss or bring a level of hyper-focus that drives a project to completion. Different ways of thinking are a competitive advantage.

How to get involved this Neurodiversity Celebration Week

This week is a fantastic opportunity to kickstart the conversation. You can:

  • Educate: Host a lunch-and-learn or share resources from the Neurodiversity Celebration Week website.
  • Listen: Create a safe space for employees to share their experiences (if they wish) and what support looks like for them.
  • Audit: Review your internal policies, from HR handbooks to your physical office layout, to see if they are inclusive of all brain types.

Neurodiversity isn’t something to be fixed or managed. It’s something to be celebrated. When we design a world that works for neurodivergent people, we inadvertently create a better, more flexible, and more productive workplace for everyone.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Employment Law Lousha Reynolds Press

Refreshing Law featured in Business Live

Lousha Reynolds of Refreshing Law featured in Business Live

Lousha Reynolds has been featured in Business Live.

Lousha recently took the helm of the firm, bringing over 17 years of expertise and a passion for straightforward, accessible legal advice. We’re excited to continue growing and evolving under her leadership.

Check out the article to learn more about Refreshing Law: https://www.business-live.co.uk/professional-services/refreshing-law-under-new-ownership-33552599

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Acas Compensation Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Kate Walsh Unfair Dismissal

Removing the statutory cap in unfair dismissal compensation: how will the UK compare to other countries?

The European Union flag, blue with yellow stars, flies in front of the EU Parliament

The Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed late last year, and you will be forgiven for trying to catch up with all the proposed developments — there are so many! One of the most significant is the removal of the statutory cap for the compensatory award in successful unfair dismissal claims (the cap is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £118,223).

The statutory cap will be removed at some point in January 2027

From the information currently available to us, it is likely to be 1 January 2027 on the same date that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is reduced from 2 years to 6 months.

Once removed, how will the UK fare when compared to a very employee friendly Europe?

In most European counties, unfair dismissal compensation is capped. The aim is simple: balance fairness for employees with predictability for employers.

Let’s look at the different regimes:

  • France link compensation to length of service. Awards start at around three and a half months’ salary (for two years’ service) and cap at 20 months’ salary, even for long-serving employees. 
  • Switzerland limits compensation to six months’ salary. 
  • Sweden caps awards at 32 months’ salary, depending on service. 
  • Spain applies a formula of 33 days’ pay per year of service (for post-2012 hires) but again capped at 24 months’ salary.
  • Italy operates a dual system. Employees hired after March 2015 face capped awards of:
6 to 36 months’ salary for large employers.
3 to 18 months’ salary for small employers.
Following a Constitutional Court ruling, judges now have discretion within those ranges — but the cap remains firmly in place.
  • Ireland caps unfair dismissal compensation at 104 weeks’ total remuneration. 
  • Denmark applies caps under collective agreements (up to 52 weeks’ pay) or six months’ salary for salaried employees, depending on service. 

The common thread for most European countries — compensation is capped, and employers are able to plan negotiations accordingly. Beyond Europe, caps are still the norm. In Australia for example, the Fair Work Commission can award compensation for unfair dismissal but only up to six months’ salary.

The UK will be joining a handful of countries which have uncapped awards. In Luxembourg, judges are given a wide discretion with no fixed statutory cap. Canada has no formal statutory cap, but compensation is typically limited to damages reflecting the employee’s reasonable notice period, rather than open-ended loss. Lastly, in Brazil, employers are required to deposit 8% of the employee’s monthly salary into an account which is managed by the Federal Savings Bank on behalf of the employee. If an employee is dismissed without cause the employer must pay to the employee, (in addition to the payment of accrued rights and as a penalty for unfair dismissal) an amount equal to 40% of that which the employer has deposited into the employee’s severance compensation fund during their employment. The amount of the penalty will therefore depend on the length of employment and on the amount of the employee’s monthly salary.

It is clear that the UK will be joining the minority rather than the majority of countries who have uncapped unfair dismissal awards.

What are the repercussions of an uncapped compensation regime?

The statutory cap currently guides settlement negotiations with parties often negotiating around three to six months’ pay to avoid the time and costs attached to tribunal hearings.

Without the statutory cap:

  • Claimants may be more willing to take cases to a final hearing, adding to an overburdened tribunal system.
  • It is more difficult for employers to quantify the financial risk of a dismissal, which will inevitably impact settlement negotiations.
  • High earners are no longer deterred from lodging Tribunal claims meaning an increase in litigation for this group.
  • There is likely to be more complex remedies hearings that need to consider quantifying bonuses, deferred incentives and unvested equity.
  • Where the Acas Code applies, a potential 25% uplift suddenly bites harder when the underlying award is not capped.
  • On a positive note, it is likely to result in a reduction in more complex discrimination claims and whistleblowing claims as there will no longer be a need to bring these claims to avoid capped compensation.

How should you prepare?

Employers would be wise to start taking preparatory steps to tighten up procedures and ensure a clear document trail is in place. With an extended early conciliation period, plans to increase tribunal time limits for lodging claims and existing tribunal delays, tribunal witnesses will be placed under significant pressure to recall events which took place possibly two to three years ago. HR teams can make both their and witnesses’ lives a lot easier with clear processes and consistent decision making. 

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

GET IN TOUCH

Kate Walsh
Refreshing Law

Categories
Dismissal Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Notice Periods Probation

The top questions we’re hearing from clients this month

Cut-out question marks on speech bubbles

Although there are a raft of changes as a result of the Employment Rights Act (see ERA Timeline), undoubtedly the change that our clients have the most questions about is the reduction to the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 2 years to 6 months, which takes effect on 1 January 2027.

The two most frequently asked questions this month relate to this and are as follows:

1.  What impact do notice periods have on qualifying service under the new regime and do we have to include them when calculating qualifying service? 

As long as the employee has a pay in lieu of notice clause within their contract and you exercise that right; i.e. you pay them in lieu of their contractual notice period, the contractual notice period does not get added to their period of service. However, for employees who have been employed for over a month but for less than two years, the law adds one week when determining their period of qualifying service. This means that even if you do exercise the contractual right to pay in lieu of notice, you need to factor in this additional notional week. 

What that means in practice, is that you need to communicate dismissal decisions over a week before the six month qualifying period to avoid the employee being deemed to have 6 months service and a right to bring an unfair dismissal claim due to the notional week of service being added. 

2.  In view of the changes, what is the recommended duration for probationary periods?

We would advise between 3–4 months. For junior roles or where employees are on site full time/closely managed, a 3-month probationary period should be sufficient. You can also build in the ability to extend the probationary period for a further 6 weeks.

That said, we acknowledge that for the majority of our clients, it is difficult to properly assess suitability and performance within a 3-month period, particularly with hybrid working and for more senior roles. 4 months does still provide enough time for a short extension of the probationary period (we recommend 4 weeks) if this is required/or time in case meetings are delayed. However, where probationary periods are extended or meetings are delayed, it is important to remember to factor in the notional week referred to above to ensure that the employee does not have 6 months service at the time of the dismissal.

We recommend reviewing and updating the probationary periods in your existing contracts before issuing them to employees who commence employment on or after 1 July 2026. You should also check that your contracts include an appropriate pay in lieu of notice clause. In addition, it is vital to ensure that managers are fully briefed and trained on any changes to probationary periods and that they understand the importance of conducting the reviews in a timely manner.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Collective Redundancy Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Redundancy

Consultation launched on the threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

Collective redundancy obligations currently arise where an employer proposes to make 20 or more redundancies within a 90-day period at one establishment. Different sites, stores and warehouses are generally treated as separate establishments. As a result, large-scale redundancies carried out across multiple sites may not trigger the duty to carry out collective consultation.

Many considered that this was unfair and so when the proposed Employment Rights Bill was first introduced by the Labour government, it included the complete abolition of the threshold at any one establishment. However, during consultation, significant concerns were raised and as a result the 20-employee trigger at one establishment is set to remain.

Instead, and at some point, in 2027, the ERA 2025 will introduce an additional, alternative threshold test based on the total number of redundancies across the whole business. This means that if redundancies are made throughout the UK at more than one location then collective consultation obligations will apply if more than a certain number of jobs are affected.

Last Thursday (26 February 2026), the Government launched a consultation on what this new organisation wide threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations should be.

The Government is considering two options:

  • Using a single fixed number in the range of 250 to 1000. 
  • Introducing a tiered system, based on the size of the employer:
250 redundancies for organisations with 0 to 2,499 employees.
500 redundancies for those with 2,500 to 9,999 employees.
750 redundancies for those with 10,000 or more employees.

The Government’s preferred approach is the single fixed number. This does appear to be the easiest way to ensure that employers understand their obligations, and that employees and trade unions are certain when they are entitled to participate in collective redundancy consultation. 

Interestingly, the thresholds are much higher than many informed commentators predicted so perhaps this is an area where Labour are listening to concerns about the impact that the raft of reforms will have on businesses and the wider economy.  If you want to engage in the consultation, it can be accessed via the following link here and is open until 21 May 2026.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Data Protection Act 2018 Data Subject Access Requests Data Use and Access Act 2025 Employment Law GDPR

The Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUAA) has passed – What does it mean for employers?

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

This new Act of Parliament updates existing data protection laws and paves the way for things like artificial intelligence. It is supposed to make things easier for organisations but still protect people and their rights.

The changes will be phased between June 2025 and June 2026 so there is nothing to do immediately.

I think it will change two things for employers:

The first is that it makes clear that when dealing with a Subject Access Request, you only have to make “reasonable and proportionate searches” when someone asks for access to their personal information.

The current guidance says “You should perform a reasonable search for the requested information”.

I hear you all saying ‘but what does a reasonable and proportionate search’ look like? Ultimately we don’t know until a court tells us, but the Information Commissioner’s office will be updating their guidance in due course, which will give us clues.

A reasonable search is likely to include using IT search tools to retrieve data. It probably isn’t reasonable to expect you to search archived data which would take you time and money to restore eg:- from tapes.

Is this likely to change much in real life? Probably not – we try our best to retrieve as much as we can when searching and if doing it properly are probably acting reasonably and proportionately already. If the request is ‘manifestly excessive’ we already have an existing pathway to charge a fee.

The second implication is that if you don’t already, you will need a data protection complaints process.

The DUAA requires you to take steps to help people who want to make complaints about how you use their personal data such as providing an electronic complaints form. You also have to acknowledge complaints within 30 days and respond to them ‘without undue delay’.   At the moment, we tend to bury information about how to complain in the small print of privacy notices and at the back of policies. We probably need to put this a bit more front and centre going forward.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

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

View of the City of London at sunset

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

View of the City of London at sunset

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