What can I do if my manager wants to sack me

It is not unheard of for a spiteful employer or manager to target an employee for dismissal in a manner that is completely unfair - as Alice found out.

In doing so they will often make crucial mistakes.

Whether it is conducting the process unfairly or disregarding an employee’s rights, it will usually be something which can give one of our trade union representatives the ideal opportunity to salvage something from what is usually a desperate situation for the employee.

When Alice contacted our Employee Support Centre it was for assistance to challenge the decision to dismiss her after six years in her role as a manager in social care.

She was sacked after facing five separate allegations of bullying along with four further allegations, which called into question her professionalism and competency.

Alice insisted the allegations were unfounded and created by her malicious manager after she had asked for a reasonable adjustment to help with her PTSD and depression.

She had requested to be allowed to work from home more often after witnessing a violent attack on public transport during her commute to work.

Alice had previously made a flexible working request, which was refused by her manager without following a proper process.

However, that request was later implemented in part after Alice raised a grievance against the decision and unjust process.

Alice felt her manager’s attitude towards her changed afterwards, which culminated in her unfair dismissal.

By the time Alice contacted us she had already submitted her own disciplinary appeal, which was on the grounds the decision was unfair.

Our trade union representative was immediately concerned after reviewing the evidence and discussing the case and background to it at length with Alice.

The bullying allegations levelled against Alice were brief anonymous summaries and lacked sufficient details to enable her to respond. While concerns about Alice’s professionalism and competency were based solely on feedback from her manager, who chaired the disciplinary hearing and made the decision.

Prior to the appeal hearing our trade union representative was keen to understand what Alice wanted as an outcome.

She was very clear in that she did not want to be reinstated because she had lost all trust and confidence in the employer given how she had been treated.

Alice wanted a settlement agreement, which would allow her to bring the matter to an end on her terms, enable her to draw a line under it and move on.

At the disciplinary appeal hearing our trade union representative took the opportunity to expand on Alice’s grounds for appeal and fully explain factors that supported her case. He maintained she had not only been treated unfairly - but also unlawfully in terms of discrimination.

In presenting the appeal, he did revisit the manager’s handling and response to Alice’s flexible working request arguing the dismissal was the culmination of unfair and retaliatory action following it, which amounted to victimisation.

Concerns about the process were also presented in terms of the manager providing the only evidence in relation to Alice’s performance and competency, and the conflict of interest in chairing the hearing and dismissing her.

In addition our trade union representative told the hearing, the justification for upholding the bullying allegations was weak and procedurally flawed.

The point was made the allegations relied on anonymous, vague summaries with no clear evidence or opportunity for Alice to respond properly.

Our trade union representative asserted the use of anonymous witness statements could not reasonably be justified and went against employment law guidance, and the lack of details to support the allegations breached the ACAS Code.

In a strong summing up of the case it was asserted the appeal should be upheld given the decision-maker was clearly biased, the lack of evidence to support the allegations, and the flawed and unfair process along with the evident disregard for Alice’s disability that can be deemed discriminatory.

Alice’s desired outcome was discussed at the end of the meeting. There was a subsequent period of negotiation and a settlement agreement was later reached.