All employers face serious dangers if they fail to follow proper procedures in dealing with their staff or to establish a compliant HR regime. Here are some who got it badly wrong. Click on the headlines below for the full horror story.
The Cost Of Getting It Wrong
- £15,000 for “sick-lie” painter
- £35,000 payout to bar manageress
- Female mechanic sues for sex discrimination
- The high cost of sex and the City
- Harassment leads to unfair dismissal
- Pregnant mother’s claim over flexible working
£15,000 for “sick-lie” painter
A painter and decorator, signed off for several weeks with stress and depression by his company, took a job with another company. He was sacked, after a hearing which he failed to attend, for gross misconduct in claiming fraudulent sick pay. An employment tribunal ruled on a technicality that he had been unfairly dismissed. His employers had not followed the correct procedures in firing him. The company is also facing a bill of more than £5,000 for legal costs.
The tribunal ruled he had not been given enough notice of the disciplinary hearing and had not been told in writing that it could have lead to him being sacked. He was awarded £15,000.
£35,000 payout to bar manageress
A manageress was sacked from the bar where she had been working for seven years after being told by her boss, “it isn’t working” and that she was to “leave right now”. She won her claim for unfair dismissal and was awarded £35,749 which included £2,560 holiday pay.
Under the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 all employers are required to follow a three step process when dismissing an employee. Failure to follow the required procedural steps will lead to an automatic finding of unfair dismissal at a tribunal.
Female mechanic sues for sex discrimination
A maintenance manager sued the rail company she worked for after she was demoted and denied work in favour of her less-experienced male colleagues. She had worked in the industry for 14 years but lost one position to a man with just 18 months' experience.
She was awarded more than £220,000 after a tribunal ruled she had been the victim of sex discrimination because her employer had failed to follow agreed procedure and had discriminated against her.
The high cost of sex and the City
Although in Britain sex discrimination cases against banks have not so-far produced the headline settlements seen in the US, there are clear signs that the courts are getting tougher. Two recent payouts of £1.4 million and £1 million would appear to bear this out.
In another case comments made at an office Christmas party by a senior City lawyer about a female member of staff resulted in a claim for sexual harassment. The case was settled out of court for £1 million.
Harassment leads to unfair dismissal
A gay employee, ridiculed at work by other workers for his sexual orientation, turned down the offer by his company to make a formal complaint. Subsequently absent through continued sickness, he was dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal found that the failure of the company to take action over the harassment or to prevent it amounted to direct discrimination and made an award of £16,000 for the discrimination claim and £7,500 for unfair dismissal.
Pregnant mother’s claim over flexible working
An employee who had worked for her company for six years, returned from maternity leave on a part-time basis, which included half a day working from home. She came under increasing pressure to revert to working during the firm's ‘core hours’. Having lodged the grievance and proceedings, she was made redundant while pregnant.
She was awarded nearly £40,000 and her firm ordered to reinstate her on flexible hours, after a tribunal ruled that it had broken the law by refusing to allow her to work flexibly after she returned from maternity leave and by making her redundant. An appeal brought by the firm failed to change either the ruling or the award.