PA Tracey Bocking was subject to a lengthy grievance process after sending an email to her boss, detective chief superintendent Emily Higham, that tribunal judges described as "innocuous", the BBC reported. The email suggested that Higham use a code name, ‘Jon Rooke’, to block out diary time and avoid excessive meetings. No bookings were made under the code name and Higham did not respond to the email.
Their superior, Chris Green, Merseyside Police’s current deputy chief constable, reportedly used the email as grounds for seeking the dismissal of Bocking and Higham. Tribunal judges stated that Green “took surprising and unfounded offence at this unexceptional and seemingly private correspondence”.
Read more: Office sex witness was unfairly dismissed, tribunal finds
The tribunal heard that that problems between Green and Higham began as far back as 2020 after Higham complained of Green's "micromanagement". Following this, Green reportedly bombarded Higham with meeting requests, which often clashed with time off for childcare commitments. This resulted in Higham having to make last-minute alternative childcare arrangements, attend meetings late or miss them altogether.
“It appears there was a personality clash here,” said Robert Forsyth, a partner of law firm Michelmores' employment practice, who was speaking to HR magazine. “Employers need to act swiftly once they become aware of any hostility, to ensure matters do not escalate.
“Deliberately arranging meetings at times a colleague is unable to attend due to childcare commitments, or treating employees differently without good reason after an employee has raised concerns, can lead to findings of victimisation, discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.”
Read more: Employment tribunal fees may be re-introduced
Keely Rushmore, Keystone Law’s employment partner, told HR magazine: “The tribunal’s view was that the email in question was ‘trivial’, and that the reaction to it was extraordinary. The case demonstrates the importance of employers being able to objectively justify their actions and decisions, and the willingness of the employment tribunal to make inferences of discrimination in the absence of such justification.
“The tribunal was also critical of employees of the employer, who simply took what they were told at face value rather than probing further, often with a view to avoiding confrontation. Again, this underscores the importance of employers ensuring that they act fairly and reasonably, and being able to demonstrate that they have not been pressured into taking action that is inappropriate or discriminatory.”
Forsyth added: “Ensuring that concerns/grievances are promptly investigated, then taking any necessary informal or formal action often defuses clashes by making clear that bullying will not be tolerated. This also helps prevent an employer losing a costly employment tribunal claim, and the resulting reputational damage.”
