Property developer's allegations 'caused employee sleep loss'

Wednesday 04 March 2020

A property development company has been ordered to compensate an ex-employee nearly £20,000 after vague and unsubstantiated accusations of financial misconduct left her so stressed that she was forced to quit.

The judgment was handed down by the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal, which found that Siena Properties failed to behave as a “reasonable” employer by not telling the former Associate Director what the specific allegations against her were, and having effectively decided to fire her without following any disciplinary process.

The Tribunal heard that the saga started in April last year, with the employee left uncertain about the status of her position for many weeks, leading her to suffer “heightened anxiety” and “sleep deprivation”.

The first issues arose when the mother of Siena Managing Director Stephen Neal – for whom the claimant previously worked as a PA before being promoted – decided she no longer wanted the claimant to be able to access her accounts. 

Pictured: The case was heard by the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal, chaired by Hilary Griffin.

She contacted the employee to ask for her to return a card reader, and later complained to her son when this did not happen. However, the Tribunal found that the card reader did not belong to the mother and that she was confused about how to remove her as a signatory. 

Shortly after, the employee was accused of “bad-mouthing” Mr Neal, as she had told a cleaner he liked things to do be “done straight away” – comments the Tribunal rejected as a breach of trust, as he claimed.

Following these events, she was called to an unplanned meeting in which Mr Neal told her he was “going to have to let [her] go”.

She told the Tribunal that he went on to suggest she had been involved in “financial impropriety”, proposed a termination payment of £7,500, stated there was a “complete lack of trust” in her. 

But informing her of an intention to fire her, he ended by saying she should take a few days holiday to allow him to “straighten things out” before hugging her and describing her as “like family”.

Mr Neal – who was described by Tribunal Chair Hilary Griffin as an “unreliable witness” – disputed the account. He denied telling her she would be let go, but added that he did discuss termination payments of “between £6,000 and £10,000”.

The Associate Director said the exchange left her “confused and upset” and that she left the office that same day. 

In the following week, several emails between the claimant and Mr Neal followed in which she received no further clarity about the nature of the allegations against her. 

She was asked to return company property, which her husband did on her behalf. 

Then, just days later, she was suspended from her role and told she was being investigated over a contract she entered for the removal and replacement of trees at a property – an order the Tribunal found she had entered in “good faith”. 

She was offered a “without prejudice meeting”, but the employee declined this and later resigned, feeling that her boss had already made his mind up.

In a message sent just hours before tendering her resignation, she asked what the company’s disciplinary policy was, suggesting that it was “not being carried out impartially and in accordance with the Codes of Practice”.

She continued: “You continually refer to allegations, however by not having been specific is further compounding my stress levels, as I feel the investigation appears to be open-ended and the time span it is taking to conduct it also contributes to my reasoning for thinking this.” 

An investigation carried out by an accountant after the employee’s departure found no suggestion of financial wrongdoing.

Finding in the Associate Director’s favour, Ms Griffin wrote in her judgment: “The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent did not have reasonable and proper cause for deciding to dismiss the Claimant before providing the Claimant with an opportunity to comment upon the allegations. Indeed, the Claimant did not even know what the allegations were.” 

She also refuted Siena Properties’ defence that it was a “small employer without a dedicated HR function”, stating: “…Any employer, no matter how small, should be aware that deciding the outcome of a disciplinary process before it is completed is contrary to the principle of fairness.  The Tribunal also noted that, despite its size, the Respondent had access to legal advice throughout and always sought advice from the Lawyers before responding to the Claimant. 

“The Tribunal did not accept that the Respondent’s size and administrative resources affected its ability to conduct a fair procedure.”

The company was subsequently ordered to award the claimant over £15,000 for constructive unfair dismissal (£11,538.48) and for breach of contract (£3,846.16).

She was also handed £1,884.62 for not being provided a written statement of terms despite requesting one.

The total compensation payment came to over £18,269.26.