Expert intervention to resolve the fallout from a workplace disagreement

Asa was delighted to keep his job after threatening a colleague and launching a foul mouthed tirade against him in an incident witnessed by colleagues.

The mobile plant fitter threatened to knock out another employee who mocked him because of his regimented fitness routine.

Asa was supported by one of our representatives at a disciplinary hearing at which he faced an allegation of the threatening and aggressive behaviour. Dismissal was a potential outcome to the hearing.

The incident followed a heated disagreement between the pair about the best way to complete a repair.

Asa snapped after his workmate swore at him and said he should go and run a marathon like he does every day because it may help him to act and deal with the situation ‘like a normal person’ and to avoid having a mental breakdown.

The reaction by Asa led to him being suspended from work and later contacting our Employee Support Centre.

Our representative supported Asa at the disciplinary hearing. He told the hearing Asa had suffered long-term with a depressive disorder and anxiety, which the company was already aware of.

It was pointed out that it does mean that Asa can be considered to have a disability in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

His strict exercise regime helped him to manage his symptoms and his colleagues were fully aware of this.

Asa had done countless runs to raise money for charity, spoken openly about how physical exercise helps his mental health and provided health and exercise tips to fellow employees.

Our representative told the hearing it was accepted Asa lost his cool after being provoked, which he regretted and wished to apologise for.

The hearing was told the comment from his workmate was sarcastic, highly offensive, unnecessary and inflammatory in that situation.

Our representative said this was evident in the comments Asa was not acting like a ‘normal person’, on the verge of a mental breakdown and mocked for running a couple of miles a day to help his mental health.

It was asserted any decision to dismiss Asa or issue him with any type of disciplinary sanction could amount to disability discrimination.

It was explained as a result of Asa’s depressive disorder his ability to deal with the disagreement was reduced and impaired, and directly influenced how he reacted in the situation.

The colleague who made the comment to Asa admitted making it and witness statements provided with the invite to the disciplinary hearing also confirmed that he did, and that Asa’s reaction was in response to it.

The hearing was told by our representative mocking someone because of their disability falls under the category of direct discrimination and can also be considered harassment.

Our representative strongly asserted the fact Asa was ridiculed, which can be considered to amount to bullying, and subjected to discrimination provided significant mitigation to explain his regrettable reaction.

The hearing was told by our representative it was a concern the employer had overlooked this when its employee handbook, which he had reviewed prior to the hearing, made it clear it did not tolerate such behaviour.

Asa, who had worked for his employer for four years, had previously found it necessary to raise a grievance because of mickey taking regarding his mental health.

It was resolved informally at the time, but the disciplinary hearing was told by our representative that it was never properly addressed, the issues continued, Asa felt he had no choice but to accept the treatment and eventually snapped.

The disciplinary hearing chair asked Asa a number of questions about his mental health and the incident before the hearing ended.

Asa was told he would receive the outcome in writing within five working days.

He received a letter a couple of days later, which informed Asa he had been cleared of the allegation.