Tag Archives: dismissal

No, it’s not OK to call your boss a “Dickhead”

Posted on by • Posted in HR Tips for Business and Charities, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

The media had a field day last week with a story that an Employment Tribunal had ruled that being sacked for calling your boss a “Dickhead” was grounds for Unfair Dismissal. As always when it comes to the reporting of Employment Law stories, the old adage “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” applies here.

The case involved a Ms Herbert, who was sacked from the small construction business she worked for by its Operations Director.  He was also Ms Herbert’s brother in law, and was married to the Managing Director who was therefore her sister in law.

Most of the facts were disputed – included the date Ms Herbert was dismissed. The only consistent fact that everyone agreed on was that at some point in the meeting where she alleged she was dismissed, she used the words “fucking dickheads” to describe the Operations Director and his wife.

The reason she won her case was that the company made a complete pig’s ear of dealing with the situation. In fact pretty much everything they could have got wrong they did.

  • When the ‘dickheads’ comment was made, the Operations Director told Ms Herbert to ‘get out’ and that she was ‘sacked’
  • The company then tried to construct a case about Ms Herbert’s misconduct and hold a later disciplinary hearing on a series of alleged serious breaches of company rules. She refused to participate in this process on the basis that the company had already sacked her.
  • The context in which the comment was made was not enough to justify a gross misconduct dismissal – and therefore she was entitled to be paid notice. In fact their company policy said that use of ‘insulting and abusive language’ would only result in dismissal if a prior warning had been given.

There are three important takeaways for small businesses from this case – none of which are around what Ms Herbert said

  • Employment Tribunals deal with the facts in each individual case. This decision does not set a precedent in any way, and especially it doesn’t give a green light for employees to abuse their bosses without penalty.
  • To make a dismissal fair, you have to have a fair reason and follow a fair procedure. The judge did conclude that Ms Herbert’s behaviour could well have been a fair reason but the Operations Directors ‘spur of the moment’ decision was not in any way a fair process.
  • The case shows starkly how long the tribunal process is taking – the events of this case happened in 2022 but the decision was not published until last week. Regardless of who is right or wrong, having a claim that takes 3 years to resolve is not a sensible way to resolve employment disputes (and as this article shows, this is not an untypical timescale)

Rearranging The Desks

Rearranging The Desks

Posted on by • Posted in HR Tips for Business and Charities • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

One of the things that concerns many small businesses in relation to employment law is the issue of constructive dismissal. A perception has grown up around the concept that if a business makes any change that an employee doesn’t like, they can resign and take the company to a tribunal. This perception isn’t helped by stories like this from The Guardian, especially its clickbait headline “Senior staff can sue if given ‘low status’ desk, UK tribunal rules”

Of course, the headline isn’t true and the story is far more complex. But it’s a useful one to look at since it covers a lot of issues that a small business might face when dealing with a change.

Firstly, what is constructive dismissal? It’s the idea that an employer makes a significant detrimental change to an employee’s terms, conditions or position that the employee can consider that they have effectively been dismissed and resign on the spot. It is in many ways the reverse of gross misconduct, which is where an employee does something so serious that the employer considers that dismissal without notice is the appropriate solution.

In some situations, constructive dismissal can be triggered by the ‘final straw’ in a series of changes. That’s in part what happened in this case.

The claimant, a Mr Walker, was a manager of a branch of an estate agents. He was moved without discussion to a smaller branch and given – again without discussion – a revised pay package. To achieve a similar level of salary he would have to hit more demanding targets. A couple of months later, he was required to return to his original branch in what was termed a joint managerial role, but which required him to sit with the majority of staff in the main office rather than at the manager’s desk. He considered this to be a demotion and considered that it would be difficult and embarrassing to have to sit among staff he had formerly managed. When he raised this with his Director, the director dismissed his concerns with a comment that he couldn’t believe someone of Mr Walker’s age would make a fuss about a desk (there was some dispute about whether the Director swore in this conversation). Mr Walker considered this the final straw, and resigned claiming constructive dismissal.

There are three key learning points from this for small businesses:

  • If you are making a change which has a negative impact on someone – even if they are in a senior role – discuss and (where possible) agree the way forward. Don’t just impose it.
  • Consider your company culture. In some businesses, where people sit would not be an issue. But if status is conveyed by office location, type of desk or anything else, taking that away will clearly indicate to people in the organisation that the individual’s status has been downgraded.
  • The Estate Agents had an external HR adviser who gave advice on how to handle the situation. The advice was not necessarily incorrect but was based on partial information (what the Director thought was important for her to know) and as result made the situation worse. Always tell your HR adviser (for my clients that means me ) the full story, even the bits that you don’t think are valid.

Constructive dismissal is actually very rare (in a 40 year HR career I’ve dealt with 2 cases and I don’t think that I am unusual in that). But you can make it rarer still by following the steps above.

A businessman in a suit sitting in an office, looking concerned, with colleagues working at desks in the background.
Can I sack a rioter?

Can I sack a rioter?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, HR Tips for Business and Charities, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

With the current unrest and racially motivated violence in many parts of the UK, which has resulted in many arrests and promises of ‘speedy justice’, employers may understandably want to dismiss any members of staff who are involved. The question is can they, without risking an unfair dismissal claim against them?

As with many Employment Law and HR related questions, the answer is “it depends”.

Firstly, if someone has less than 2 years’ service with you, the answer is yes – currently employees need to have worked for you for 2 years or more to make an unfair dismissal claim. Although this time limit is going to change at some point in the near future, that’s the position at the date of this post (and consequently those who are involved in the current issue).

If they have more than 2 years’ service, then you need to tread a little more carefully. Simply being arrested, or even charged, does not automatically give you the right to dismiss. You will need to investigate matters as far as possible, as you’ll need to show that the behaviour outside of work, even if criminal,  significantly affects your trust and confidence in the person as an employee.

Some of the questions you need to ask yourself are:

  • Does this behaviour prevent the employee from doing their job? If imprisoned – or remanded in custody for a prolonged period – then you would potentially have fair grounds for dismissal on the basis of capability.
  • Does the behaviour damage your business or organisational reputation? If the individual is a senior manager or is publicly associated with your company or ‘brand’ then this might be the case. You’re less likely to be able to justify it if the person is an ‘anonymous’ shop floor worker, unknown to the wider public
  • Does your existing disciplinary policy include criminal behaviour outside work as grounds for gross misconduct? While this doesn’t alleviate the need for an investigation in individual cases, it does strengthen your justification.
  • Can the individual continue to work with colleagues? If your business has a racially diverse workforce, co-workers may not want to work with someone convicted of racially motivated crimes. Again you will need to look at all the circumstances.
  • Does racially motivated behaviour breach organisational values or policies about diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI)? This may be a justification in some situations, but is more likely to be valid in a charity/not for profit organisation which has some aspect of DEI as part of its defined aims.

One thing you don’t need to worry about are claims that individual’s views are a ‘protected belief’. Political views are not automatically protected (there are some limited legal protections which wouldn’t apply here) and racist views are extremely unlikely to pass the legal tests of ‘protected belief’.  Nor are there human rights issues – the right to freedom of expression is a qualified one, which means it can restricted to protect public safety or the prevention of crime.

It’s not surprising that many employers would not want people involved in the current riots working for them. But it’s important to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. As with many HR issues, taking the time to do things properly will protect your business in the long run.

(It may seem an odd comparison, but the way the BBC handled the recent case of disgraced ex-newsreader Huw Edwards might be a useful approach to take in many situations)

Important: This post is for general advice and information and neither the author or Ariadne Associates cannot be held liable if you take action based solely on the contents of this document. If you need advice on an individual case, please contact us or seek professional legal advice

Billion Dollar Brain

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, HR Tips for Business and Charities, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

Over the last few days, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter and the ensuing announcement of mass redundancies has been in the news, with mostly negative headlines. Businesses often restructure and reduce staff numbers after a takeover or other major ownership changes, so what (apart from the reputation of Mr Musk) makes this one particularly newsworthy?

Firstly, unlike the recent P&O case where the employer took a deliberate decision to break the law, it’s become clear as more news has emerged that this is more cock-up than conspiracy.  Twitter seem to have taken the view that the approach to redundancy in the US would apply throughout the world without any reference to local employment laws or expectations.

In the UK for example, there is a duty to consult staff in advance of redundancies taking effect, with specified time limits when more than 20 redundancies are planned. There’s also a requirement to notify the Government (via the Insolvency Service) of redundancies at the same time. It appears from reports that Twitter announced the mass redundancies and then realised they needed to consult so are hastily trying to put together consultative arrangements. However, consultation must also be meaningful, and it’s hard to see how it could be so in this case if the decisions have already been made.

Secondly, the method of announcing the decision was crude and arbitrary – staff seem to have found out in advance of a formal announcement when they were locked out of work email and social media channels (as another example of the US-centric nature of the exercise, announcements were made at 9am California Time – after the end of the working day for most of Europe and at the end of it for the UK)

Thirdly, it now appears that at least some of the people who were made redundant are actually needed by the company, with a number being asked to return. Having been treated in such a manner, it’s unlikely that many will.

It’s a salutary lesson that even if you are a ‘successful billionaire tech business person’ you can still make major mistakes – and ones that play havoc with people’s lives. It’s little surprise that goodwill towards the company is in short supply.

If you do need to consider redundancy in the UK, and sadly they are a fact of life for many businesses at one time or another, remember these key points.

  1. Think carefully and plan where and when redundancies need to be made, allowing for consultation and other periods – including legal minimum timescales
  2. Remember your legal obligation – in the UK – is to avoid redundancy if you can so give thought to possible redeployment of affected staff
  3. Inform staff face to face if you can, but if that is not possible then an email explaining the situation and the reasons for redundancy
  4. Your decision will have a major impact on people’s lives – bear that in mind and show some empathy for what they are going through. And don’t expect people to always behave ‘rationally’ in the circumstances. (Even if you don’t have any fellow feeling for specific individuals, remember that other staff in your business will be watching how you treat their colleagues and their subsequent goodwill may depend on how you deal with the situation)
  5. Make sure you know what people are entitled to in terms of notice and redundancy pay, and pay them promptly after their employment ends.

The restructuring of Twitter is proving to be something of a case study in how not to reduce your workforce. And while Elon Musk has bottomless pockets which will allow him to buy his way out of employment litigation, most businesses don’t, so make sure you do it right!

HR’s Donald Trump moment?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

There has been a view for many years that the UK is governed by what has been termed the “Good chaps” theory of government – that there are certain unwritten rules and conventions that are understood by all parties and which everyone works within, even if there is profound disagreement on the issue at hand. Some commentators argue that this has disappeared in recent years as certain politicians have wilfully disregarded these understandings in order to gain a particular advantage or objective. (It was also in evidence in the Donald Trump years in the US, where Trump would say or do things that shocked people, not necessarily by their intent or outcome but the fact that he said or did them at all)

The world of work in the UK had a similar Trump type moment yesterday when P&O Ferries announced via Zoom that they were sacking 800 UK crew immediately and intended to replace them with cheaper foreign staff via an agency. Much of the shock and anger from politicians, HR professionals and others was not so much around the decision (other companies in the past have announced far bigger changes or lay-offs) but the fact that they did so in a way in which broke all the unwritten rules of employment relations in the UK. Even if they can legally do something in a particular way, most companies would approach a decision like this with an understanding of how they would be expected to behave.

P&O are not the first company to break these norms – in fact it has always gone on, even in the days when trade unions were stronger. But they are a high profile well-established ‘household’ name and consequently the expectation would be that they would do things ‘properly’.

An example of Donald Trump breaking the political norms by making personal comments about rival John McCain

What P&O have also done is shown how weak UK employment law is in protecting employees from an employer determined to behave in this manner. They will have factored in not only the cost of 800 potential unfair dismissal claims (all of which they are likely to lose) but also the fact that it will take 18 months -2 years before a tribunal hearing takes place (and even then they could refuse to pay, meaning individuals would have to take further legal action to enforce their claims). By which time many  ex-employees will have given up and the news story will have died down.

So what is to be done? More, and/or stronger employment law is the cry from certain sections. But as has been pointed out when there is a call for the UK to have a written constitution to resolve the reliance on ‘good chaps’, this wouldn’t solve all the problems – and would take time to go through parliament.

A better solutions, in my view,  would be for existing laws to be more easily applied – not only by tribunals being made faster and their judgments more easily enforced, but by the use of a properly funded statutory body similar to the Health and Safety Executive) with powers to hold bad employers to account. We already have a pretty impotent “Director of Labour Market Enforcement” within the Civil Service so the basic structure is there.

But also, HR professionals need to stop living in their unitarist utopia and accept that there is a need to recognise that employees often want different outcomes from their employment relationship. And so we need to be more open to negotiation , compromise and the role of trade unions or other employee representatives. That means going back to the ‘good chaps’ theory of employee relations, that there are unwritten rules that we all follow. P&O may be a particularly egregious example but they are in many respects the ‘tip of the iceberg’ for modern HR and business practices.