Employer have said I have resigned - I haven't. Urgent help please!

[Titslikepicassos]

I have a loooong thread in AIBU and received excellent support but things have escalated.

Long story short, I went on maternity leave this time last year. I had issues at work throughout my pregnancy, being shouted at and sidelined and told to move locations. Sorted it all out informally.

In March I asked to return to work early from Mat leave due to financial issues caused by lockdown. At this point my boss attempted to move me again, that didn't work and she then went back on the hours she had given me and it messed up my childcare.

I raised a formal grievance and put a flexible working request in at the same time. The company failed to do anything with my request and the grievance process was mismanaged and a data breach occurred in the middle of it, where my grievance letter was upload to a public file and seen by others.

The grievance was upheld in parts but they again tried to move me to a new location which doesnt work due to childcare issues.

I requested mediation with my boss in order to go back to work as I'm still not back 7 months later.

Today the regional director has said that they won't honour mediation and I have now resigned.

My union rep has disappeared and I received this at 16:00 today so couldn't get hold of ACAS.

Any advice would be very welcome!

Would you even want reinstatement? I don't think I'd want to go back after this type of shit show!

Dealing with the incompetence is much easier, now that I'm away from with it. HR keeps popping up once a week and offering a settlement agreement.

I think they know they've fucked up - they're just not entirely bothered. If they get me to settle quickly, it will all go away.

They might be more bothered once your solicitor has confirmed potential value!

Has your union solicitor confirmed prospects for you? It isn't clear whether the solicitor is acting f for you yet?

@kirinm

Has your union solicitor confirmed prospects for you? It isn't clear whether the solicitor is acting f for you yet?

They're still assessing the case - they've been in contact to ask questions and to get all the paperwork but the last I heard they were looking at the unfair dismissal.

They're very slow! I'd be shot if I was that slow assessing a new claim.

Some companies have a review at Director Level as a sort of appeal process, but taken at an internal level, usually when there has been problems with the process as a last ditch attempt to keep issues internal before going to court.

While keeping going on the legal side, maybe you and your union rep could discuss the possibility of a Director's Review? It would need to be higher than the Regional Director, and hopefully by asking for this, your HR department would no longer be involved.

@NoWordForFluffy

They're very slow! I'd be shot if I was that slow assessing a new claim.

My union rep said he was the busiest he has ever been (covid) and imagines its the same for the union legal teams. If I was paying for a solicitor I'd be looking for another one, but as it is, I don't feel like I'm in a position to try and hurry things up!

@ilovemydogandmrobama2

Some companies have a review at Director Level as a sort of appeal process, but taken at an internal level, usually when there has been problems with the process as a last ditch attempt to keep issues internal before going to court.

While keeping going on the legal side, maybe you and your union rep could discuss the possibility of a Director's Review? It would need to be higher than the Regional Director, and hopefully by asking for this, your HR department would no longer be involved.

It's an idea - but if the regional director is to be believed, he told DP that the decision to get rid of me was not one he made, it had come from higher up. He answers directly to the board.

My union rep is missing again, I'll keep pestering.

They’re also probably trying to “catch you out” somehow.... Don’t discuss anything with them. Refer all to lawyer - including pay disputes.

I've just caught up with this thread. So here are my thoughts:

1. I really don't think them offering your DH a 'dream role' was appropriate, nor do I think he should have accepted. It now puts the two of you in an awkward situation. My guessing is he won't want your issue to now get too messy since it may affect his reputation at work? This reeks of a sweetener, and I would have thought DH would have wanted to be as far away from them as possible, given how you've been treated. He had other offers on the table too. I'm also not sure I believe the RD.

2. To the people saying the settlement should go via your solicitor, this isn't true. They are within their rights to have a conversation with you (without prejudice) and then forward you a document (with the offer) to review - any agreement made will need the approval of your solicitor in any case. Once you are in receipt of the offer, you would request your solicitor to review the doc and approve/request changes/negotiate a higher offer etc. So they haven't really done anything underhand here, but the fact that they've now moved to SA can be construed as an admission of guilt. That said, most organisations are encouraged to go this route rather than dragging things via a tribunal. I'd start those conversations with them, a SA seems the best option for you. You get to walk away from a toxic environment with some cash and start afresh. I don't believe you could simply walk back into your role. Generally speaking, if you get to the stage of raising a grievance, you should accept that your time at that firm is up, it's very difficult to return, particularly if the grievance involves senior managers. Sadly most firms always protect senior staff. Trust me, I've worked for a FTSE firm where an exec member send dick pics and still kept his job. Must easier for your employer to pay you to walk away quietly.

3. It's clear that you have a case for unfair dismissal. It's also explicitly clear that they didn't follow the ACAS code of conduct when investigating your grievance. The fact that they didn't speak to any of your named witnesses highlights that their process was unfair, and designed to protect your line manager. And that's without the sheer incompetence of HR uploading your grievance letter into a public space for all to read! So, in terms of a SA, I would be requesting AT LEAST a year's pay. Though I think you could potentially get more. From what you have explained (I've read both threads) I would think there were claims for unfair dismissal, but also for the stress/hurt feelings caused by the incompetence of HR/your line manager. HR have consistently told you one thing, and then done another, probably because they've been cornered by your line manager, but HR should have the balls to do this right thing. Technically you could and should have appealed the grievance outcome on grounds that the process was unfair. Though it may be too late to do this, I think you can bring it to their attention during the discussions you have. If I were you, I would suggest that your solicitor (and ACAS) is in agreement that the process was entirely unfair. You may find that your offer is upped as a result of their incompetence whilst investigating the grievance.

@justilou1

They’re also probably trying to “catch you out” somehow.... Don’t discuss anything with them. Refer all to lawyer - including pay disputes.

They can't 'catch her out' if the conversations are had 'without prejudice'.

Also, to the PP who mentioned a 'director review' of the appeal, this is standard. Usually an appeal should be heard by an independent manager. Generally speaking, the grievance should also have been investigated by an independent manager alongside HR, to ensure fairness. I doubt this was done at all.

OP, I know you've put in a SAR but does this include the report for the grievance investigation? There should have been a detailed report which also highlighted the process that they followed. You should deffo review all documents that are returned as part of the SAR before you agree to any settlement. SARs usually aid the settlement process, and it's normal for these to be provided before the SA is signed.

.

Even if they are allowed to speak with her (which doesn't sit right with me), she can't open negotiations until her solicitor advises on likely award at Tribunal. She doesn't want to sell herself short.

Oh, and if she's not comfortable talking to them, she's well within her rights to direct them to her solicitor.

@Smallgoon

I've just caught up with this thread. So here are my thoughts:

1. I really don't think them offering your DH a 'dream role' was appropriate, nor do I think he should have accepted. It now puts the two of you in an awkward situation. My guessing is he won't want your issue to now get too messy since it may affect his reputation at work? This reeks of a sweetener, and I would have thought DH would have wanted to be as far away from them as possible, given how you've been treated. He had other offers on the table too. I'm also not sure I believe the RD.

2. To the people saying the settlement should go via your solicitor, this isn't true. They are within their rights to have a conversation with you (without prejudice) and then forward you a document (with the offer) to review - any agreement made will need the approval of your solicitor in any case. Once you are in receipt of the offer, you would request your solicitor to review the doc and approve/request changes/negotiate a higher offer etc. So they haven't really done anything underhand here, but the fact that they've now moved to SA can be construed as an admission of guilt. That said, most organisations are encouraged to go this route rather than dragging things via a tribunal. I'd start those conversations with them, a SA seems the best option for you. You get to walk away from a toxic environment with some cash and start afresh. I don't believe you could simply walk back into your role. Generally speaking, if you get to the stage of raising a grievance, you should accept that your time at that firm is up, it's very difficult to return, particularly if the grievance involves senior managers. Sadly most firms always protect senior staff. Trust me, I've worked for a FTSE firm where an exec member send dick pics and still kept his job. Must easier for your employer to pay you to walk away quietly.

3. It's clear that you have a case for unfair dismissal. It's also explicitly clear that they didn't follow the ACAS code of conduct when investigating your grievance. The fact that they didn't speak to any of your named witnesses highlights that their process was unfair, and designed to protect your line manager. And that's without the sheer incompetence of HR uploading your grievance letter into a public space for all to read! So, in terms of a SA, I would be requesting AT LEAST a year's pay. Though I think you could potentially get more. From what you have explained (I've read both threads) I would think there were claims for unfair dismissal, but also for the stress/hurt feelings caused by the incompetence of HR/your line manager. HR have consistently told you one thing, and then done another, probably because they've been cornered by your line manager, but HR should have the balls to do this right thing. Technically you could and should have appealed the grievance outcome on grounds that the process was unfair. Though it may be too late to do this, I think you can bring it to their attention during the discussions you have. If I were you, I would suggest that your solicitor (and ACAS) is in agreement that the process was entirely unfair. You may find that your offer is upped as a result of their incompetence whilst investigating the grievance.

Thanks @Smallgoon - some interesting points.

@Smallgoon - in regard to the SAR. Yes I've requested the grievance investigation and everything to do with it - including my witness's statement of events (which they don't have).

They requested the two month extension for this, it's due around the New Year. I wasn't planning on doing anything until I've had chance to comb through it. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

Yes, the Regional Director may have been acting on orders, but further up the food chain may not have had all the information is all I am saying.

Of course all the points that are being made about your legal position are correct, but my only point here is that the legal process is not a creative procedure as the main method of acknowledging where it went wrong is by financial compensation, keeping in mind that the courts are a bit congested.

In my experience as a union rep, most managers are not evil people, and when a wrong decision has been made, it's usually due to wrong information or a misunderstanding, but can be amazing what can be negotiated with a good union rep being heard by a manager who can make a decision.

It's clear that you have a case for unfair dismissal
You absolutely can't say that. We've only had OPs version, they might describe the circumstances very differently.

Not saying that OP. doesn't have a case but strangers from a forum can't say that anyone has a clear case for dismissal.

OP needs to hear back from the Union before having a clearer perspective at what she could expect and therefore ask as a SA.

@NoWordForFluffy

Even if they are allowed to speak with her (which doesn't sit right with me), she can't open negotiations until her solicitor advises on likely award at Tribunal. She doesn't want to sell herself short.

Yes of course her solicitor can advise on likely award, as can union rep. If anything it's more likely that the union rep would sit in on any discussions rather than solicitor (would be very expensive to use the solicitor's time in this way) and both can advise on award using ACAS guidelines. OP seems clued up enough to know that she wouldn't agree to anything without the approval of a solicitor, or put anything in writing which could come back to haunt her.

Oh, and if she's not comfortable talking to them, she's well within her rights to direct them to her solicitor.

Of course, but again this is where the union rep comes in - they provide support in these types of meetings and can interject etc. If all comms were done via the solicitor this would be very costly. From a tribunal's point of view, they prefer that there is dialogue from both sides - a tribunal should always be a last resort, the very reason why companies are encouraged to go the SA route.

I feel for OP and her wellbeing. She's a new mum and shouldn't be dealing with this amount of stress. Much better to get this sorted sooner than dragging it out for months and months (I realise the SAR won't be sorted until the new year so this can't be helped). Starting SA conversations is a positive step.

You absolutely can't say that. We've only had OPs version, they might describe the circumstances very differently.

@dontdisturbmenow

in my opinion it's clear OP has a case for unfair dismissal. Happy?

I appreciate we've only heard OP's version of events. But if we exclude the reasons why the grievance was raised in the first place, the handling of the grievance would be reason alone for unfair dismissal imo. Based on what OP has said the process was not a fair one and didn't follow the principles set out by ACAS. Not following a proper process, resulting in not upholding the grievance and then effectively telling OP she has resigned, sounds a lot to me like 'unfair dismissal'.

OP, one final thing. My reference to your dp accepting the role, wasn't a dig at him. My fear is that it weakens your argument a little and aids them. A tribunal may turn around and ask why if they're such terrible employers, that your dp accepted a role with them after resigning... and they (employers) may turn around and say "we can't be that bad since her dp is happy to work with us" in response to you being on medication/stressed etc. I worry that they may also lean on dp to persuade you to back off by whispering in his ear about how it could hinder his chances for growth etc...

Sorry if you've already mentioned this but who conducted the grievance hearing? How was the panel constituted? Were you allowed to bring a rep with you?

I'm not saying to drag it out. I'm saying she needs to be fully advised before even thinking about starting negotiations.

And the fact she shouldn't have this stress is another reason to delegate the negotiation to somebody else.

@Smallgoon

OP, one final thing. My reference to your dp accepting the role, wasn't a dig at him. My fear is that it weakens your argument a little and aids them. A tribunal may turn around and ask why if they're such terrible employers, that your dp accepted a role with them after resigning... and they (employers) may turn around and say "we can't be that bad since her dp is happy to work with us" in response to you being on medication/stressed etc. I worry that they may also lean on dp to persuade you to back off by whispering in his ear about how it could hinder his chances for growth etc...

Sorry if you've already mentioned this but who conducted the grievance hearing? How was the panel constituted? Were you allowed to bring a rep with you?

I understood your point about DP - it's a thought I've had myself. However, it's a WFH role in an off shoot of the company - he should have very limited contact with the main company. It's a risk though.

In regard to the grievance panel, the first grievance meeting was held by an out of region manager and I was permitted my rep. HR didn't come to this meeting. I heard nothing for ages after this. Eventually the whole process was started again from scratch, when the original manager allegedly refused to deal with it any further, with a different out of region manager, and this time with HR. My rep has been fully involved throughout.

The grievance process was a farce.

The flexible working request process was not followed AT ALL.

My dismissal was a farce and my last pay check is short by a couple of thousand pounds.

And this all came after the original issues stated in my grievance. I now have nearly 100 pages of relevant information and supporting evidence. HR have made an absolute mess.

@ilovemydogandMrObama

Yes, the Regional Director may have been acting on orders, but further up the food chain may not have had all the information is all I am saying.

Of course all the points that are being made about your legal position are correct, but my only point here is that the legal process is not a creative procedure as the main method of acknowledging where it went wrong is by financial compensation, keeping in mind that the courts are a bit congested.

In my experience as a union rep, most managers are not evil people, and when a wrong decision has been made, it's usually due to wrong information or a misunderstanding, but can be amazing what can be negotiated with a good union rep being heard by a manager who can make a decision.

I don't think there is a single person within the company who has the full facts of this - HR had no oversight of my manager and her actions, no one had oversight of HR when they came into 'help'. Massive mess, much easier to end my employment than unpick 8 months of shit. There was no other reason at all to get rid of me.

I don't believe there was any malicious, evil intent from the RD or board - they just didn't want the hassle of fixing it.