REWARD
Nicola Mullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula , explores the interesting outcomes of three different recent employment law cases Management style amounts Dismissals,disabilities, disciplinaries
managerial techniques would be changed. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case. Prior to his final resignation, the employee raised a grievance against his line manager, alleging ‘inappropriate, bullying and intimidating behaviour’. The grievance was dealt with by another manager, who found that there was no evidence of unacceptable and intimidating behaviour. Around the same time, the line manager was promoted, which was seen by the claimant as a failure to recognise the seriousness of their behaviour. An appeal to the grievance was raised but was dealt with in an informal manner, with the appeal chair taking a ‘light touch’, which failed to consider any of the respondent’s internal policies, such as the dignity at work policy. This ‘light touch’ was also evident, as no notes were taken during the appeal meetings, nor was a thorough outcome letter prepared which considered all aspects of the claimant’s grievance. The way the grievance and appeal was dealt with, and the promotion of the line manager, left the claimant feeling they could no longer work for the respondent,
and he resigned with immediate effect. He raised a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, on the basis that the respondent had breached the implied term of trust and confidence in the employment relationship. The ET upheld his claim, finding the approach taken by the respondent in investigating the grievance and handling the appeal wasn’t within the band of reasonable responses. The size and resources available to the respondent should have meant it would be able to advance an investigation quickly and in a timely manner, and not take over a month. There was also a failure in the outcome letter to accurately reflect the evidence gathered in the investigation, which demonstrated that the grievance chair had failed to adequately apply the internal ‘dignity at work’ policy. Finally, the appeal was dealt with in too informal a manner than would be expected of an organisation of the size of the respondent. The case serves as an important reminder to ensure management styles are reasonable and appropriate, that all allegations are taken seriously and
to constructive dismissal The employment tribunal (ET) had to consider whether a management style which involved humiliation and intimidation could ever be appropriate. In the case of Mobbs v Weetabix, the employee worked for the organisation from 1993 until his resignation with immediate effect in June 2020. For most of his employment, from 1993 until 2018, there were no issues or concerns. However, this changed when the employee began working with a new line manager in 2018. Initially, the relationship was fine but it began to deteriorate, due to the line manager’s ‘direct’ management style, which could be ‘challenging’ and ‘uncompromising’. By their own admission, the line manager vocalised frustrations, and could ‘overstep the mark’ with colleagues. He also used a humiliating management style, with the aim of ‘getting the best out of them’. This led to the claimant’s first resignation, in September 2018. However, this was retracted following the line manager’s assurance that their
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | April 2023 | Issue 89 44
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker