Targeted by a spiteful boss

A vengeful manager out for revenge can spell disaster for anyone’s career.

The idea this can happen will sound eerily familiar to those who have faced this situation - and possibly implausible to those who never have.

Electrician Elias was sacked just 18 months into his role with a housing association after refusing his manager’s instruction to do a questionable job during work time.

The manager provided Elias with details of a job not in his work diary, and at a property not managed by the housing association.

Uncomfortable at what he was being asked to do, Elias questioned the job.

The manager assured him it was ok, said it was a job for his daughter, and he was giving him permission to do it.

Elias checked with an experienced colleague who advised him not to do it, and so he refused to do the job.

When Elias spoke to our trade union representative after contacting our Employee Support Centre, he explained what happened next.

The following day he was summoned to his manager’s office and informed safety concerns had been raised about his work.

Elias argued he had always been given positive feedback for his work. He was informed that given the safety critical job which he does, he would be suspended from work until the concern was addressed.

Shocked Elias received an email that afternoon inviting him to a disciplinary hearing at 9am the following morning, with his manager.

No evidence to support any allegation was provided with the letter.

Elias obviously concerned, especially as the letter warned dismissal was a possible outcome, exercised his right to be accompanied at the hearing.

He asked his colleague who had advised him not to do the job to act as his companion, and he agreed.

The manager chaired the disciplinary hearing with another employee taking notes. Elias’s companion did a good job arguing his case.

He asserted that the case was unfair and the manager had retaliated against Elias for refusing to do work at his daughter’s house. He added that it was obvious also that he did not like Elias because he was Greek and often mimicked his accent and background, and pointed out there was nothing wrong with his work.

Elias was later dismissed.  He believed the process and outcome were both unfair.

But as Elias had under two years’ service he could not make a claim for unfair dismissal.

Our trade union representative submitted a disciplinary appeal on behalf of Elias on grounds, which included whistleblowing victimisation and race discrimination and victimisation, which he fully explained at the appeal hearing.

The disciplinary appeal hearing was told Elias had been treated unfairly for refusing to cooperate with his manager and misuse company resources and time for the personal gain of his boss.

Our trade union representative asserted this made him a whistleblower and his dismissal amounted to unfair treatment and victimisation, which he was protected from regardless of his length of service.

He also referred to the notes of the disciplinary hearing. They captured Elias’s colleague and companion detailing how the manager had treated him badly as a direct result of his race, our representative explained how and why it amounted to race discrimination and relevance to the dismissal.

Our trade union representative included in a comprehensive presentation of the appeal  how and why the disciplinary process also did not  adhere to the good practice guidance in the ACAS Code of Practice, which was always reliable evidence  a process was unfair.

Elias informed our trade union representative prior to the appeal hearing that his desired outcome was a settlement agreement, as he did not want to be reinstated. This was made clear during the hearing.

The week after the hearing an initial conversation took place about a settlement agreement. After some subsequent discussion and negotiation, an agreement was eventually reached.