If you have ever sent an email to the wrong person in error you know the sense of horror when the realisation dawns, in the same way Emma did.
The content marketing assistant was cc’d in an email from an unhappy client, and she was surprised by the criticism in the message.
Emma intended to send a response to a colleague, also copied on the email, in which she questioned if the client was serious or having a laugh.
But Emma accidentally clicked reply to all, meaning her email went to her colleague, the client and her male manager.
Emma, who had been in her role, for just over three years realised to her horror what she had done, and immediately contacted the client.
He saw the funny side because he admitted on reflection he thought it was a bit cheeky and out of order. He assured Emma that no offence had been taken.
Emma spoke to her manager, apologised, explained she had spoken to the client and sorted it out. Emma was given words of advice about her future conduct.
It appeared to be the end of the matter…and it was until six months later when Emma contacted our Employee Support Centre for advice.
It was because she had been invited to a disciplinary hearing to face allegations in relation to the email she had sent in error.
The allegations were of unprofessional conduct, bringing the employer into disrepute and a loss of trust and confidence.
Emma told our representative she was shocked by the action being taken, especially after she thought the issue had been resolved months ago.
Surprised Emma was convinced it was an act of retaliation by her manager.
She told our representative she had complained to HR that he had not paid her for overtime she had worked, which she believed was an unlawful deduction of wages.
Her manager was dismissive, which is why she escalated the matter.
Emma did plan to raise a grievance before the matter was resolved informally by HR, and she was paid the money it was established she was owed.
Shortly afterwards Emma was informed by her manager she was suspended from work in relation to the email she had sent in error many months earlier.
The disciplinary evidence against Emma was the email she sent and statements from her manager and colleague, both copied in on the email.
Emma was supported by our representative at the disciplinary hearing.
Prior to the hearing he had asked for Emma be allowed access to her work email, which was withdrawn when she was suspended, it was to allow her to gather evidence to help her to respond to the allegations. Supervised access was granted.
The evidence Emma wanted to obtain was correspondence with the client in which he made it clear no offence was taken.
Our representative presented that evidence to the hearing chair during his presentation of Emma’s case, which asserted the action being taken against her was grossly unfair and the timing of it highly questionable.
He told the hearing she made a genuine mistake which was different from committing an act of gross misconduct as was being alleged, and which is usually intentional behaviour and a serious breach of company policy.
The hearing was told the matter had been resolved at the time and the unreasonable delay in raising the allegations, which were known about six months earlier, breached employment law and the ACAS Code of Practice.
Our representative added the response from the client confirmed the company’s reputation had not been harmed in any way that could support Emma brought the employer into disrepute, or that could reasonably justify a loss of trust and confidence in her.
The hearing was told of Emma’s remorse, exemplary work record and about how the timing of the allegation being raised should raise serious questions about the manager’s reasoning and motivation for raising it at that time.
Emma was later cleared of the allegations and allowed to move to a different team, which is what she wanted.
