Some directors believe that they are safeguarding their businesses by not parting with employees that pose problems. They just make do: changing the employee’s department when it is no longer possible to keep them in their current position, making compromises and keeping their fingers crossed in the hope that, should an improvement seem to be elusive, the situation does not actually degenerate further. Fear of not being able to justify dismissal and running the risk of a sanction from the industrial tribunal drives this wait-and-see attitude.
In reality, by allowing such situations to linger on, not only will they be unable to avoid tomorrow’s litigation, but they will also be stoking the fire of workplace misery that can be even more devastating.
How can that be, you may ask? Well, let me tell you the story of Nadine and Pierre (names and identifying factors have obviously been changed for reasons of confidentiality).
Nadine is employed by a company with 200 employees. Her work has never been satisfactory. Grounds for dismissal could have been given but her shortcomings have never been documented and suspicions never investigated. Indeed, her managers preferred to pass the buck. She has changed departments and managers 3 times in 10 years.
Pierre, on the other hand, has an impressive track record. Recognized for both his technical aptitude and managerial skills, today he is the chairman’s right-hand man. Pierre inherited Nadine in his department. After an 18-month period of sick leave, she came back to work with onerous adjustments to be made for her position and she regularly visited the occupational doctor. Due to her interpersonal tactlessness and professional inadequacies, she would throw off balance both her colleagues and line manager. In order to meet deadlines, her line manager was obliged to take up her work.
Pierre opened up to his chairman, explaining the situation and asking him to dismiss Nadine. The chairman considered that the file was not sufficiently substantiated. He feared being accused of discrimination due to the employee’s health. He thought that the risk of the industrial tribunal’s involvement was too great. So, he asked Pierre to “handle” the situation by better supervising Nadine.
After a few months, Nadine’s line manager was on the verge of exhaustion, despite Pierre’s support. The rest of the team was also feeling stressed by the situation. Nadine, for her part, did not understand why her tasks were being given to others and was uncomfortable with Pierre’s interventions. Furthermore, she had no hesitation in complaining about this to the chairman, who welcomed her into his office.
Nadine finished by accusing Pierre of psychological harassment. So the chairman launched an investigation, much to Pierre’s consternation at this chain of events. The investigation involved no fewer than 20 employees and received a great deal of publicity. Enquiries lasted two months during which the chairman refused to speak to Pierre, in the interest of impartiality. Totally isolated and discredited, he ended up having a breakdown and fell into depression. The enquiry commission concluded that there was no harassment but considered that Pierre’s management was flawed and this adversely affected his team. The chairman aligned himself with these conclusions and dismissed Pierre for serious misconduct.
From a relational perspective, what a mess! Pierre is now just a ghost of himself. One year after the fact, he is still under heavy medication and incapable of going back to work, even less taking up a managerial position. His burnout was acknowledged as a work-related illness, which paves the way for significant compensation from the company. Nadine finished by negotiating her departure while the rest of the team members left the company.
The upshot of this story? Pierre’s department has been decimated, the company lost several valuable employees at a key moment of its development and must now tackle not one but several industrial tribunal litigations, acknowledgement of work-related illness will have an impact on the company’s ATMP (work-related accidents and illness insurance) subscriptions and, therefore, the level of its social charges. And last, but not least, the main protagonists have been left high and dry; it will take years for them to recover.
In certain situations, taking an immediate risk is really the only way to contain the risk. When human interactions and professional relationships are too damaged, it is better to cut the contractual cord as quickly as possible and set aside provisions for potential industrial tribunal contingencies, especially as an experienced lawyer will be able to quantify the sanctions incurred with relative accuracy. It should also be understood that the non-management of issues involving people comes at a price that the company will have to pay sooner or later, one way or another.
* * *