Any Employment Lawyers or HR people around?

[Marie2023]

I could really do with some guidance, if that’s OK.

Basically I have been bullied at work by a very senior member of staff. The Board are now involved. It is clear that me and the member of staff can no longer work together so I have offered to leave.

I have been told that I will receive a ‘generous payout’. The thing is, I don’t know what I should be expecting. Given the time of year, I may be out of work for some time.

So what does a ‘generous payout’ look like, in relation to monthly salary? Any ideas please?

Thanks.

They probably aren’t deliberately trolling but just have been brought up on a diet of The Good Wife or Suits and therefore believe that if you go into a negotiation aggressively enough and bang the table, you will prevail irrespective of the respective legal strengths of your cases and bargaining power. Not understanding that if you reject a decent offer, it is gone and you cannot get it back on the table if the employer does not accept your counter. The OP is very likely to end up with just her 2 weeks paid notice and no reference if she adopts some of the suggestions which have been made.

Because she has been bullied and has proof that the HR manager was also complicit.

So? A company can bully someone then sack them if they want. If they have less than 2 years service and aren't being bullied due to a protected characteristic there's fuck all the employee can do.

No, the OP should not listen to the people on here as she has no idea of their qualifications

Youre not wrong about that! She didn’t say she had proof that HR told someone to “be more nasty”.

She did.

She said the following:

But the worst part about it is the Executive Director of HR read an earlier draft of this email and revised it as she said it was “too nice” (I have this in writing).

Yes, I have proof of that comment.

Your ED's must not be very busy or have nothing better to do if they've got time to proofread emails between managers and staff.

Telling someone that their comments are too nice is not the same as telling them to be “more nasty” 🤣.

I would expect any HR adviser or lawyer to advise the exec to use more neutral language in a formal email rather than anything which gives the benefit of the doubt to the employee (or actively assumes the worse of them).

But even if that was what the HR adviser did mean, so what? Where is the cause of action arising from that?

But there's a difference between being nasty and being less nice. If there are questions about performance, HR will always advise that feedback is 'less nice' so that there is no room for misunderstanding. So many times, issues occur because people have a misleading impressing of their performance because someone's given feedback too 'nicely' and it's not landed. This creates big issues especially when/if you need to do down a disciplinary route or put someone on a PIP.

*I would expect any HR adviser or lawyer to advise the exec to use more neutral language in a formal email rather than anything which gives the benefit of the doubt to the employee (or actively assumes the worse of them).

But even if that was what the HR adviser did mean, so what? Where is the cause of action arising from that?*

Thinking about this, why is HR getting involved if it's just your standard 'you need to do this and you haven't and I'm not at all happy with you' email from your manager? every manager I've worked for has been more than capable of expressing their (in some cases extreme) displeasure without recourse to HR. Is there something else going on here before this blowup?

It sounds like OP and the senior had a massive bust up over the urgent work which OP said she couldn’t do because something else had a higher priority - leading to the senior wanting to fire OP.

On that basis I’m not surprised at all the senior involved HR in documenting their performance concerns about her. I would absolutely do the same thing if I were starting down a route of managing someone out of the business on performance concerns. OP going to the Board has just escalated the timescale of what was probably a foregone conclusion here.

Of course it does. That is exactly what she meant. What else could it mean?

Exactly. If they could get rid of her then they would have done. The OP has not given enough detail.

Well for example, the original email could have said

”please could I remind you that our standard working hours are 9am to 5pm”

Neutral would be

”Our standard working hours are 9am to 5pm and our internal records show that on 3 occasions between x and y date, you did not log in until 9.30 am”

Not “nasty” but it’s not as nice as option 1.

Nasty would be something like this.

”Concerns have been raised about your reliability. We note for example that there have been multiple occasions where you have not been logged into our systems during standard working hours and we are therefore going to commence an investigation into whether there has been timesheet fraud”

You've resigned, if I were your employer I wouldn't be giving you a generous payment.

Well, whatever she meant, she should not have said it as it makes it look like they were both trying to frame the OP.

As the pp said, why was HR involved anyway?

That’s not the correct question.

The correct question is what difference would it make to the OP’s legal position if any of what you are saying is correct?

And the answer to that question is none.

Why not?

If the email that the bully sent would have no effect on the OP's legal position then why was it sent to HR in the first place?

Because HR aren’t lawyers and their role goes much further than just ensuring that employment law is complied with. They also deal with performance concerns, managing people out of a business whilst protecting the morale of the rest of the workforce, supporting managers in difficult situations, etc.

I talk to my HR business partner about lots of things relating to the management of my direct reports and less than 5% of this relates to legal issues. In every senior leadership team I’ve ever been part of (4 in the last 10 years) HR has been at the weekly meeting and played an integral role in this kind of situation.

Lots of possible reasons but usually when managers want someone in HR to check an email it's because they're wanting a formal record of communications and are checking they don't say something they shouldn't.

It doesn't sound like the manager had said anything they shouldn't in the email but I can totally see a situation where I'd advise them to "be less nice." That is not the same as telling them to be nasty. It means keeping the email factual so nothing can be misinterpreted.

Can I just say, I have left out a lot of detail that is identifying, so if anybody is genuinely interested, I am happy to answer questions through DM. Thanks.

Op - this is some advice you need to read, and read again. You are happy with Flashy9's advice - but it's wrong. You've worked there 14 months, so they can just sack you if they want.
Hermioneweasly is an expert, but you seem to be ignoring them.
This is a very bad way to get advice - some is brilliant and correct but a lot is absolute bollocks and could get you into a sticky situation. Ring ACAS for the facts.

Update: I have just received this text message from the CEO:

Hi [Marie2023],

I would like to make this very easy.

You are legally entitled to 2 weeks severance pay. I’ve asked the team to provide 4 weeks severance pay and also if you want to resign effective immediately, I will pay you out the notice pay as well. You will also be paid any outstanding leave and entitlements. Together this will take you to the end of January. I think this is a fair compromise.

Separately, you mentioned concerns about [Group Counsel’s] and [Compliance Officer’s] behaviour and I am taking that allegation very seriously. I would welcome the opportunity to have this in writing so I can formally raise this.

Alternatively you are welcome to return to work and we can work through these issues. I want to do what minimises the stress the least.

Beat regards,

[CEO]

not a lawyer or HR, but that seems a very fair message

I agree. That sounds like a decent offer and a reasonable email from the CEO.

If you cannot afford to leave I'd take them up in the offer of working through the issues.

I'd say I'd very much like to stay and I would be interested in how to achieve this.

Then at least this might take you past the 2 year mark, and give you time to find a better job.