Increasing numbers of Employment Tribunal claims - UK

The Tribunals Service annual report shows that the Employment Tribunals' workload in 2006-07 was around 137,000 cases compared to 127,000 in 2005-06. This represents an annual increase of nearly 8%

Possible reasons for the increase

A widely held view is that the statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced in 2004 are at fault. The EEF, an industry body for engineering and manufacturing employers, puts it down to, "parties becoming more familiar with the rules" and "pre-application procedures not having the desired effect of cutting down claim numbers".

Many commentators have taken the view that, owing to both the vagueness of the procedures themselves, and the complexity of the regulations governing when they will or will not apply, the legislation makes it more, not less likely that a dispute may escalate to a tribunal hearing.

This is something that has been recognised by Government and in December 2006, it launched a root and branch review of Government support for resolving disputes in the workplace. It appointed Michael Gibbons, a member of the Ministerial Challenge Panel, to review the options for simplifying and improving all aspects of employment dispute resolution.

The Gibbons Review called for a radical overhaul of the current approach to resolving workplace disputes including repealing the statutory dispute resolution procedures. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly the DTI) has stated that it is committed to piloting any new approach to dispute resolution and the recommendations made in the Gibbons Review are now the subject of a consultation paper. We, through the Employment Lawyers' Association, have given feedback on our experience of how the procedures have operated in practice.

One area, which in our experience is causing an increasing number of claims, is related to bullying and harassment.

Bullying and harassment

ACAS describe these terms as interchangeable with many definitions including bullying as a form of harassment. Further, they state that:

* harassment, in general terms is, unwanted conduct affecting the dignity of men and women in the workplace. It may be related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, nationality or any personal characteristic of the individual, and may be persistent or an isolated incident. The key is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient; and

* bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient. Bullying does not include legitimate and constructive criticism of a worker's performance or behaviour or reasonable requests made of workers.

Clearly, everyone should be treated with dignity and respect at work, but why do employers need to take action on bullying and harassment? Not only are they unacceptable on moral grounds but, may create, poor morale and employee relations, loss of respect for managers and supervisors, lead to poor performance and productivity, high absence and damage to company reputation.

Bullying and harassment can result in tribunal and other court cases against the company with the potential for payment of unlimited compensation. It is, therefore, in every employer's interests to promote a safe, healthy and fair environment in which people can work.

It is not possible to make a direct complaint to an employment tribunal about bullying. However, employees might be able to bring complaints under laws covering discrimination and harassment on one or more of the following grounds:

* sex;
* race;
* disability;
* sexual orientation;
* religion or belief; and
* age.

Handling bullying and harassment

ACAS outline the following 5 step guide for dealing with bullying and harassment in the workplace:

1. develop and implement a formal policy;
2. set a good example;
3. maintain fair procedures for dealing promptly with complaints from employees;
4. set standards of behaviour; and
5. let employees know that complaints of bullying and/or harassment, or information from staff relating to such complaints, will be dealt with fairly and confidentially and sensitively.

It is important that any complaints raised or information received about bullying and/or harassment are taken seriously and investigated promptly. Whilst ACAS suggest that some complaints may be dealt with informally, employers need to be wary of giving out the wrong message about how seriously the complaint is being taken if this approach is taken.

Depending on the outcome of the investigations into the bullying/harassment complaint, it may be that the use of counselling will help. Counselling can be particularly useful where the investigation shows no cause for disciplinary action, or where doubt is cast on the validity of the complaint. Counselling may resolve the issue or help support the person accused as well as the complainant.

However, the employer may decide that the matter is a disciplinary issue that needs to be dealt with at the appropriate level of the organisation's disciplinary procedure. As with any disciplinary problem it is important to follow a fair procedure. In the case of a complaint of bullying or harassment there must be fairness to both the complainant and the person accused.

There may be cases where somebody makes an unfounded allegation of bullying and/or harassment for malicious reasons. These cases should also be investigated and dealt with fairly and objectively under the disciplinary procedure.

In cases which appear to involve serious misconduct, and there is reason to separate the parties, a short period of suspension with pay of the alleged bully/ harasser may need to be considered while the case is being investigated. If then, the employer is contemplating dismissing an employee, the statutory procedures must be followed.

Conclusions

Whilst the number of claims being handled by the employment tribunals is on the increase, the underlying reasons for this are by no means certain. However, our experience shows that issues of bullying and harassment in the workplace are one area that is on the increase.

The ACAS 5 point plan is a useful guide for employers to ensure that they have the necessary policies and systems in place for handling complaints of bullying and harassment.

From: http://www.workplacelaw.net/
------------------------
The problem of course with the ACAS 5 point plan is that managers do not set a good example, they do not always maintain fair procedures for dealing promptly with complaints, they do not set standards of behaviour, and complaints are not always dealt with fairly, confidentially and sensitively.

In the context of higher education, self-policing and self-regulation have simply failed. Could this be one more reason why the victims/targets have no faith in the selective application of statutory dispute resolution procedures, and resort to Employment Tribunals? What exactly is a victim/target meant to do?

Do we have any statistics breaking it down to different industries and professions, on how many Employment Tribunals could have been avoided if the statutory dispute resolution procedures were followed properly? Who is the biggest offender? Now that would be an eye-opener!

We want to know what onus - and if necesary compulsion - the Gibbons Review will place on employers to resolve disputes in a fair and transparent process.

Fat words...

We came across a document titled 'Equality & Diversity' put together by The Association of University Administrators (AUA), the Higher Education Equal Opportunities Network (HEEON) and the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU).

We quote:

'Bullying can be defined as offensive behaviour which violates a person's dignity, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment, or which humiliates or undermines an individual or group. Such behaviour can be vindictive, cruel or malicious.

Bullying is generally considered to be a form of harassment that is not directly related to discrimination. For example, the law explicitly covers sexual and racial harassment but at present does not explicitly cover bullying. Bullying can cause stress and employers may fail in their duty of care to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees, if they do not take steps to prevent it. Most HEIs now have policies, guidelines and codes of practice covering bullying.

Bullying can take various forms, from name calling, sarcasm, teasing, and unwarranted criticism, to threats of violence or actual physical violence. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that bullying costs employers up to 80 million working days a year in lost productivity and over £2 billion a year in lost revenue, Bullying can also cause low morale and produce a high turnover of staff.'

And:

'Dignity is the human quality of being worthy of esteem or respect. Dignity at work refers to a set of principles, values and practices which ensures that all individuals are able to maintain their self-esteem and work in an environment free from all types of harassment and bullying.'

Dear AUA, HEEON and ECU,

We are all aware that most HEIs now have policies, guidelines and codes of practice covering bullying. The question is what happens when management are doing the bullying and then investigate themselves? Fact: Self-regulation does not work and the only recourse for the victims/targets is to suffer, lose their jobs and if they have the energy and money to pursue their case through the courts. Is this satisfactory?

So dear Dear AUA, HEEON and ECU, thank you for your lovely definitions. Now tell us how you will hold accountable the offenders. The landscape is littered with good academics suffering. Your definitions are just that, definitions and fat words, meaningless unless there is some action. Stop killing forests with lovely booklets and prospectuses - get beyond your fat words and save the taxpayer some real money.

Inmates running the asylum?

Anonymous said:

What I want to know is how a University can be expected to be held accountable by HEFCE if the University's Vice-Chancellor was a HEFCE Board member, chair of the HEFCE Quality Assessment, Learning and Teaching Committee, and member of the HEFCE Widening Participation Committee? Is this yet another case of the inmates running the asylum?

Threshold

What is the threshold of a politician in government or the Higher Education Funding Council or even the hopeless union doing anything about it?

North Harris Montgomery Community College District awarded 'Divestors of People' standard

North Harris Montgomery Community College District awarded 'Divestors of People' standard. For more info check the Hall of Shame.

For more information on workplace bullying at North Harris Montgomery Community College District, please check:
http://www.zimbio.com

Kingston University awarded 'Divestors of People' standard

Kingston University awarded 'Divestors of People' standard. For more info check the Hall of Shame.

For more information on workplace bullying at Kingston University, please check:
http://sirpeterscott.com/workplacebullying.html

Failure to attend a Robby Williams tribute band may result in disciplinary proceedings

Anonymous said:

This years staff development is more bizzare than previous ones. We have been told that attendance at a Robby Williams Tribute band concert is compulsory. Failure to attend may result in disciplinary proceedings. Torture as well as bullying.

We ask: Can we please have the name of this HEI? They are a prime candidate for the 'Divestors of People' Award.

Bullying major factor in suicide

First:

Experts: workplace bullying major factor in suicide

Workplace bullying is said to have been a factor in 100 suicides in Ireland last year. Clinical Psychologist Michael Mullally, who specialises in the area, says the problem is now reaching epidemic proportions.

He has been speaking at the International Association for Suicide Prevention Conference in Kerry this afternoon. Mr Mullally said that bullying in work is affecting [in Ireland] almost 160,000 people.

From: http://www.independent.ie
---------------------------------
Then:

Suicide don under 'huge stress' in job - By Tony Tysome. Published: 15 September 2006, Times Higher Education Supplement

Universities urged to review plans to outsource support services as inquest hears of work pressures leading up to academic's death. Tony Tysome reports.

Universities were urged to bolster staff support services this week after an inquest was told that an academic committed suicide after becoming unable to cope with the pressures of her job.

Kingston University is to conduct a review of its occupational health service for staff after an inquest heard how Diana Winstanley, a professor in the university's School of Human Resource management, hanged herself in her home in July shortly after complaining to her ex-husband about heavy workloads.

The university had received no indication that Professor Winstanley, who was an expert in work-related stress, was suffering as a result of her workload.

The tragic news comes as many universities are considering outsourcing confidential staff counselling services, which are seen as a vital lifeline for a growing number of academics suffering acute levels of stress.

David Berger, who chairs the Association for University and College Counselling and is head of counselling at Hull University where the service for staff is about to be outsourced, warned that outsourcing could in effect leave some staff with no support or outlet for their anxieties. He said: "Although some staff may quite like it, others will find it virtually impossible to find the time to go to offices outside the university within normal working hours."

Mr Berger said there was anecdotal evidence that both work-related stress and mental ill-health were on the rise among academic staff. The AUCC is taking steps to plot the trend.

Sally Hunt, joint general secretary of the University and College Union, commented: "Our stress survey indicated borderline levels of psychological distress among staff. Employers must take action to reduce workloads and tackle the causes of occupational stress in the sector."

David Miles, Kingston's pro vice-chancellor for external affairs, told The Times Higher that the institution was preparing to review its staff support systems in the light of the tragedy.

Professor Miles said that higher education was "an area where people are expected to deliver high standards under pressured circumstances, and this is becoming increasingly so".

"There is a sense of profound shock here over Di's death. In the preceding weeks, to most people who met her she seemed to be her usual positive self," he said. "There was no indication she was suffering a level of stress that might have contributed to her death." Professor Miles said that the university offered confidential counselling to its staff through its occupational health service and that it had recently revised its stress management policy.

Evidence submitted to the recent inquest, held at West Sussex Coroner's Court, suggested that Professor Winstanley was struggling in her job, which involved some overseas travel and grappling with challenges involving computer technology.

Professor Winstanley's former husband, Nicholas Jarrett, told the inquest that work had been the main cause of his ex-wife's anxiety shortly before her death.

Speaking to The Times Higher later, he said: "I have no doubt at all from the things that she said to me that she was under huge stress at work, and that she was finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the demands that were placed on her.

"I believe from what she said that she had inadequate administrative and technical support."

Christine Edwards, a colleague at Kingston and a long-standing friend of Professor Winstanley, said: "No one would have been more aware of the support available at the university than Diana. "As far as we are aware, she had not set in motion any of the procedures within the university's human resources policies or accessed any of the support services open to her."
---------------------------------
Now draw your own conclusions.

25 Top Workplace Bully Tactics

Workplace bullies use many methods to intimidate their targets. Based on studies of toxic workplaces, the Workplace Bullying Institute has identified 25 of the Top Workplace Bully Tactics employed by workplace bullies (see here).

1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71 percent).
2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating and was clearly showing hostility (68 percent).
3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly") in meetings (64 percent).
4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others (64 percent).
5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the group (61 percent).
6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61 percent).
7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence (58 percent).
8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for the target (57 percent).
9. Started, or failed to stop, destructive rumors or gossip about the person (56 percent).
10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55 percent).
11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either socially or physically (54 percent).
12. Publicly displayed "gross," undignified, but not illegal, behavior (53 percent).
13. Yelled, screamed, threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a person (53 percent).
14. Stole credit for work done by others (47 percent).
15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's performance (46 percent).
16. Declared target "insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary commands (46 percent).
17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate privately or publicly (45 percent).
18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45 percent).
19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, race, accent or language, disability (44 percent).
20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44 percent).
21. Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out (44 percent).
22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person; effort not stopped by the employer (43 percent).
23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more mistreatment (43 percent).
24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41 percent).
25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40 percent)

From: http://www.bullyeq.com/

...and the ritual continues... US

Board of Directors
North Harris Montgomery CCD
5000 Research Forest Dr.
The Woodlands, TX 77381

Ladies and Gentlemen:

For 3-1/2 years, I served as an employee of the NHMCCD (North Harris Montgomery Community College District). I was among the first Division Operations Managers (DOMs) hired within the District, and during my tenure, I believe I brought much structure and positive change to both Montgomery College and the District in general. I was instrumental in organizing the DOMs throughout the District into a professional and effective business group, developing our own training programs, peer support structures and all-District networking with the District administration. I loved my work, and most of the people I worked with on a regular basis.

I came to NHMCCD as a military retiree, and a retiree from a major Fortune 500 corporation. I hold a Bachelor’s degree in General Business Administration and a Master of Business Administration specializing in Management. In my corporate position, I directed a world-wide program for Corporate Recognition, and worked extensively in training supervisors, managers and Corporate executives in emerging styles of people management and Corporate Quality. I was a certified Senior Examiner, trained under the Malcom Baldridge Award criteria. I am currently an Adjunct Lecturer (Professor of Management) in the University of Houston system.

I only mention my background to emphasize three prime issues: (1) I am considered an expert in my field: Management, (2) I accepted the position as DOM because it was an opportunity to “make a difference” and contribute to my community – not because I needed to work, and (3) I know good management – and bad - when I see it.

I have the utmost respect for John Pickelman and your staff of Vice-Chancellors and other administrators at NHMCCD headquarters – most of whom I worked with closely in my position, and I received exceptional cooperation and support. However, I feel the District has removed itself so far from the individual campuses, that it is not aware of the unethical practices and behavior that may be occurring on a regular basis. My refusing to participate in this type of behavior, and stating so strongly, led to my eventual resignation.

I did not resign because I wanted to leave Montgomery College, but because I was forced to. For the last four months of my employment, I was subjected to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, complete disrespect, removal of my supervisory responsibilities, exclusion from District educational opportunities offered to me, and behavior uncharacteristic of an ethical supervisor. This was instigated and orchestrated by Dean Deborah Ellington, [The link connects to a page which has been removed since this posting - a photo of Dean Deborah Ellington by the Acropolis] in order to force my resignation. There was no attempt to “fire” me because no reason could be found. Dr. Tom Butler displayed a complete lack of leadership by even refusing to meet with me to discuss my situation, and VP of Instruction Julie Leidig tried to intervene but was so concerned for her own position that she was unable to effectively address the issues or the truth about what was occurring. Whatever Dean Ellington said was accepted without question. Most was fabricated or otherwise untrue.

I only stayed the additional 4 months in order to protect my Division employees, who were also being harassed by unfair practices and unfair expectations, false accusations, and pure terror - in fear for their jobs. In fact, as I was able to prove some of the allegations false, Ms. Ellington waited until I resigned before terminating one of those employees using those false accusations as a basis. By the way, that employee was one of the most dedicated, loyal and productive employees any supervisor would want to have. The District lost an exceptional person when she left.

I have spent the past 7 months investigating the supervisory background of Deborah Ellington, and I must admit I have been surprised at what I have found. Where Dean Ellington goes, chaos prevails, especially when dealing with employees and faculty. I will not go into detail, since detail should be readily available in District records. A good question to ask is WHY North Harris College wanted to get rid of her so badly? How many people were affected or lost their jobs because of her “leadership”? How many law suits and/or threats of lawsuits and/or grievances have been initiated against her at North Harris and Montgomery Colleges? Why are her actions acceptable to the Administration? Recently, I discovered that Ms. Ellington has been making false accusations against me in order to protect herself and her very poor fiscal and ethical practices, and the ensuing results. I don’t need to defend my reputation to those that know me, but I will to those that don’t. And strongly.

I have accepted my current situation, although I was just over a year from qualifying for TRS retirement. This was a major financial “hit” to me. More so, I miss my good friends, coworkers and employees at MC, DSTC and the other campuses. Yet, I CANNOT accept what has happened to so many others, and I am refusing to just “drop it” – too many others may suffer. Therefore, I am asking you, as the NHMCCD Board, to investigate this continuing situation and take some action to prevent it from happening in the future. Although you probably were not aware of it before, now you are; and I trust you will ask questions and advise me as to what investigation will be initiated and what the resolution is. You could start by asking Mr. Glen Powell about what occurred during the 4 months I was being pressured to resign, as I kept in constant contact with him until my last day of employment. There was nothing he could do but listen, and he did listen and I appreciate that. Yet, no one seems to want to challenge Ms. Ellington for her management practices.

I am prepared to release further information publicly, if necessary, within the next two weeks. It is not my intention to embarrass the District; rather, to cause some action. But, I do expect to be informed what action the District plans, and how any investigation will be handled. I have nothing to lose by going public with my information; my goal is simply to gain some satisfaction for the many current or former employees whose lives or careers have been damaged by this very unstable person, who the District has placed in such a high position. Her actions violate your own Ethics Policy (see the NHMCCD Staff Handbook), so I would hope that you do support your own written policies. I also urge that you research “workplace mobbing” and the effect is has on employees and organizations.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing a reply from you very shortly.

Sincerely,

Richard E. (Dick) Martin

More info at: http://www.zimbio.com/