Expert help to avoid getting fitted up by unwarranted and groundless allegations

The challenge for any manager is getting the balance right between firm management and bullying behaviour because as Sarah-Louise discovered it can be crucial in a disciplinary case.

The project manager shopfitting faced a desperate fight to save her job following a formal complaint about her management style.

Sarah-Louise, who had been in her role for four years, was adamant she was a firm but fair leader.

She did, however, accept that the particular challenges in fulfilling her role and managing staff could be difficult and make working, not intentionally, uncomfortable for some of them.

A unhappy, rebellious, trouble-making or genuinely aggrieved employee raising a grievance against a manager is a common occurrence.

Team members were said to be perturbed by Sarah-Louise’s management style. It led to what was described as a formal grievance being raised against her, and Sarah-Louise was suspended from work.

Subsequently, she was invited to a disciplinary hearing and warned a potential outcome to the meeting was dismissal.

An obviously concerned Sarah-Louise contacted our Employee Support Centre for help with the case.

She provided our representative with the evidence of the case against her, which included allegations she had consistently undermined staff, unfairly criticised work and created a hostile work environment within the team. Sarah-Louise vehemently denied all allegations.

Our representative reviewed all of the evidence, focusing on the witness statements provided.

Apart from the main allegations made by the employee who made the complaint, the other three witness statements included more general comments about Sarah-Louise and no evidence or examples e.g. she does not listen, wants everything to be perfect and puts pressure on to meet deadlines.

The employer’s disciplinary policy mirrored the ACAS Code of Practice. It allowed employees to request the witnesses attend a disciplinary hearing. Our representative asked for all of the witnesses to attend the hearing.

The employee who made the complaint and one other witness refused to attend. The employer allowed written questions to be put to them before the hearing took place.

The answers to those questions, put together by Sarah-Louise and our representative, revealed a lack of tangible evidence to support the allegations.

The two witnesses who attended the hearing were quizzed on the allegations  by our representative. And again although in parts critical of Sarah Louise, it clearly emerged there was no reliable or credible evidence to support any allegation of wrongdoing.

The lack of actual evidence from witnesses was highlighted by our representative to assert the allegations should be dismissed. He focused on the company grievance process to reinforce the point.

One of the written questions our representative put to the employee said to have raised the grievance was about the date he submitted his grievance letter/email, when his grievance hearing took place and the outcome of it.

He responded that he did not submit a written grievance and had not attended a grievance hearing.

Our representative, having requested a copy of the company grievance policy, pointed out the handling of what the employer said was a formal grievance against Sarah-Louise  did not comply with the established and recognised company procedure.

This included the fact Sarah-Louise was never interviewed in relation to the grievance, as policy said she should be, and the recommended initial informal approach to resolve a grievance was not attempted before disciplinary action was initiated against her.

Our representative told the hearing the process was wholly unreasonable and as a result if dismissed,  Sarah-Louise could claim for unfair dismissal.

The hearing was presented with documents and evidence to support Sarah-Louise was a firm but fair manager.  This included clear examples of instances where she had provided constructive feedback to team members and showed any criticisms were aimed at improving performance and achieving team goals.

Our representative explained how Sarah-Louise was apologetic if any employee felt upset following any interaction with her, had reflected and taken appropriate learning from the case and was willing to work with the company and employees to address all matters highlighted.

Sarah-Louise was a asked a number of questions about her management style before later being cleared of the allegations.