A disciplinary case with the wrong ingredients

Adam was devastated, confused and lost when he believed he had been sacked for ‘serious hygiene’ breaches despite him being adamant the allegations were malicious and false.

The bakery worker said he was dismissed in a phone call shortly after raising a grievance for bullying and racism against his manager.

When Adam spoke to our Employee Support Centre for help, he was clear it  was retaliation for the concerns he had raised. It was hard for our representative to disagree.

Adam was given no evidence to support the allegations, or to justify the curious termination of his contract after just 13 months in the job.

The sequence of events was telling. Adam, who was not English born and had moved to England three years earlier, raised a grievance for bullying and racism because of his manager’s response to his flexible working request.

Adam wanted to work set hours to support his wife and children who were finally relocating from overseas to live with him in England.

His manager referred to Adam’s culture, said he would never let anyone tell him to leave his wife in another country, said it was a terrible thing to do just because he was expected to work hard and send all of the money home.

He added that someone like Adam should be grateful the country was welcoming, that he had a job and he should be thankful for the hours he was given. Adam was told his flexible working request would not be considered.

Shocked Adam immediately spoke to a senior colleague about what was said to him. His workmate said it was out of order and offered to speak to the manager, which he later informed Adam did not go well.

The colleague advised Adam to raise a grievance, which he did straightaway on the grounds of race discrimination, for the comments made to him, and bullying for refusing to consider the flexible working request in line with company policy.

Adam sent the grievance to his manager. When he was summoned to his office the following day, he thought it was to discuss the matter. This was not the case.

Instead Adam was told he was being suspended from work for reported hygiene concerns in that he had been  repeatedly observed not washing his hands properly and working without a hairnet. Adam denied the allegations.

Adam was very clear on the fact he received a phone call from his manager the following day informing him that after a disciplinary investigation, the decision had been taken to dismiss him. It was when Adam contacted us for help.

The decision was not confirmed in writing. Our representative contacted the employer immediately to request written confirmation of the decision.

The HR advisor claimed Adam had misunderstood what he had been told. She said he had not been dismissed, and would be invited to a disciplinary hearing instead.

The employer provided no evidence to support the disciplinary allegations and was insistent Adam attend the hearing.

Our representative submitted a new grievance on Adam’s behalf on grounds the disciplinary process breached the ACAS Code of Practice and the treatment of Adam amounted to victimisation after he raised his initial grievance for race discrimination and bullying.

The new grievance included a request for the disciplinary process to be suspended until both grievances were resolved.

The employer initially refused to do so, but eventually did after an exchange of email correspondence with our representative over a one-week period.

At the grievance hearing, our representative was able to put forward a compelling argument the disciplinary process was retaliation, victimisation and was unfair and should be stopped. This is what Adam wanted along with appropriate action to be taken against his manager,

It later emerged Adam’s colleague, who had supported him, was spoken to as part of the investigation into the grievance.

The disciplinary case against Adam was later dropped and when he returned to work he had a new temporary manager. A new permanent manager was later appointed.