Avoiding career-threatening consequences following a missed deadline

No work-life balance, not enough hours in the day, working beyond your contracted hours - sound familiar?

If so, you will understand how graphic designer Cherry felt, and the anger and frustration she experienced when she faced the threat of dismissal for missing an important client deadline under such circumstances.

Cherry was suspended from work and faced an allegation of negligence in the performance of her duties.

She had been reminded about the importance of the deadline just a week beforehand, but had a period of sickness absence and had alerted her manager that she might not complete the work on time.

A disciplinary investigation found that Cherry, who had worked for her employer for five years, had a case to answer.

Following the conclusion of the investigation, she was invited to attend a formal disciplinary hearing.

The invitation warned that, if the allegation was found proven, it would amount to gross misconduct and could result in dismissal without notice.

This was despite the fact that failing to meet a deadline was listed merely as an act of misconduct in the employer’s disciplinary policy - and it was the first time Cherry had ever failed to complete work on time.

The employer also ignored mitigation raised by Cherry, including her excessive workload and an unexpected sickness absence just days before the deadline.

Concerned, Cherry contacted our Employee Support Centre for expert advice and support to exercise her right to be accompanied by a trade union representative at the hearing. We were able to help with both.

Cherry discussed her case with our trade union representative and provided him with evidence relating to the allegation.

She had also taken time to compile her own evidence, which she handed to our representative, and had done a good job of it.

Key in that evidence was email correspondence spanning several months, and crucially, the weeks leading up to the deadline.

The correspondence showed that her manager’s responses were repeatedly dismissive and effectively amounted to: ‘We’re all busy, prioritise what you need to do and get on with it.’

There was no dispute that the deadline had been missed, and the evidence confirmed it had been clearly communicated to Cherry.

Our trade union representative recognised that the case rested on mitigation, which he used to argue that Cherry should not receive any formal sanction.

He presented details of Cherry’s workload at the time and the email correspondence she had compiled to support her case.

He walked through a selection of emails to emphasise her repeated requests for support with her excessive workload, which had left her feeling swamped and unable to cope.

Our representative spoke about the reasonable expectations of a manager in such situations.

He referred to the employer’s duty to manage workloads and ensure employees are not overwhelmed, arguing that ignoring workload warnings breached this duty, using the manager’s email responses to highlight and support the point.

The fact that Cherry was ill and unable to work in the days before the deadline, and the lack of cover or support despite clear knowledge of the looming deadline, was highlighted as an additional failure on the employer’s part.

In summing up the case, our trade union representative was firm in his assertion that the mitigation should mean no disciplinary action was taken against Cherry.

He closed by highlighting her exemplary work record: she had never previously missed a deadline, had consistently produced high-quality work, and had repeatedly raised workload concerns that were not appropriately addressed. This, he argued, directly led to the missed deadline -not negligence.

Our representative also maintained that management’s failure to provide appropriate workload support was the most fundamental contributory factor in the missed deadline.

He told the hearing, in no uncertain terms, that dismissal would not be in line with the company’s disciplinary policy given the mitigation, and that it would be disproportionate and grossly unfair.

Cherry was later informed, following the hearing, that no disciplinary action would be taken against her for the missed deadline.