A discrimination case that lasted a decade has resulted in a professor of engineering receiving PS1 million. Although payouts this large are rare, it serves as a warning to employers about the financial reality of grievance failures.
If you sweep under the carpet employee concerns, they will spiral out of control. When concerns are not addressed properly, the business risks facing legal consequences such as an employment tribunal.
University of Edinburgh ‘s failure to resolve grievances has more than one lesson
This case has many lessons. It contains claims of victimisation, disability discrimination, and unfair dismissal. Employers must put empathy and support at the forefront of their investigations. This should be the main focus of the investigation throughout.
Early action is important
Professor Sheikholeslami was appointed chair of chemical processes engineering at the University of Edinburgh and given the task of setting up a brand new laboratory. She raised concerns early on about a lack support. The university did not properly respond to her complaint despite having in place a grievance procedure.
Employers can use the early stages of a grievance to investigate staff concerns thoroughly and give a reasoned response. Employers must not ignore concerns that are raised informally. Even if the complaint is raised informally, it should be investigated. If necessary, formal procedures can be initiated.
Miscommunication creates risk
The tribunal found that there was “miscommunication” regarding the duties of the professor between the university, and by the professor. Although job roles may change depending on the business’s needs, businesses can be at risk if they fail to communicate any changes.
Two steps are essential to avoid long tribunals in this case:
- Update documents to reflect changes in the employee’s role. Set out at least a general outline of the expected duties, and indicate where they may be subject to changes.
- Regularly check in with your employees, particularly early on. Opening up a dialogue with employees can help you identify conflicts or concerns.
These conversations will help employees settle in more smoothly and prevent frustrations or resentment from building up due to unanswered queries, project bottlenecks, or lack of support.
The professor took a two-year sick leave due to depression and stress at work. Her pay was then cut, with little guidance, by the University of Edinburgh. They again did not follow their own procedures.
When dealing with long-term absenteeism, organisations must show empathy and support. This is especially true when the absence is linked to stress at work. Following these steps is key.
- Attend welfare review meetings in order to keep track of the situation. You can also identify any adjustments that may be needed, such as a gradual return to work.
- Assess the level of communication that the employee feels comfortable with and avoid the business going over the limit.
- As the absence continues, you should seek medical advice from a professional occupational health expert to understand the situation and determine the best course of action.
Stress, disability and the legal threshold
As in this case, long-term illness can also be classified under the Equality Act 2010 as a disability. This law protects the employee if the illness results in a “long-term” physical or mental impairment which substantially impacts daily activities.
The discrimination found in this case, which stemmed from a claim of unfair dismissal, led to the lifting of the compensation cap (normally equivalent to 12 months salary).
It is not enough to have robust procedures for handling sickness. The managers must also be trained in their proper use. Regular reviews and refreshers are essential for all businesses, no matter their size.
Discipline processes: Stick to the script
The ACAS Code of Practice can be a useful guide when it comes to dealing with disciplinary issues. Tribunals consider the guidelines in unfair dismissal cases, even though they are not mandatory. If recommended procedures aren’t followed, compensation awards can rise by as much as 25%.
Victimisation of employees and an unsatisfactory dismissal process
The University of Edinburgh terminated Professor A’s employment after launching a review of discrimination. This was due to the expiring of his work permit. The process was not successful.
It may have been true that there were no other roles available, but no steps were taken to explore alternatives, no meetings were held to discuss the decision and the employee was not given the opportunity to express her opinion before she was terminated.
It’s easy for this to have been perceived by the university as a ‘get-out-of jail card’. The university failed to provide a fair procedure that would have allowed the professor to voice her opinion. The institution did not give her the option to appeal her dismissal once it was confirmed.
Listen before you act
Employers should be cautious when dismissing an employee for raising complaints or concerns. It doesn’t matter how strong a case a business may think they have. They must always give the employee a chance at providing reasonable support and a chance to respond.
Employers who fail to do so risk a collision that could end in similar claims for unfair dismissal, victimisation, or discrimination.
Care and consistency are important
The University of Edinburgh has failed to support the professor consistently.
The easy way to dismiss staff concerns only fuels the fire of resentment. Tribunals are often the last resort of many employees who could have avoided them with constant support, well-established procedures, and listening ears.
