Sending a colleague a birthday card might seem like a kind gesture, but experts have warned against seemingly innocuous workplace behaviour that could land you in hot water.
Yesterday, it was reported that an office worker will receive a payout after her boss breached employment laws by refusing to say hello to her.
Andrew Gilchrist refused to greet Nadine Hanson three times when she arrived for work, and after a string of incidents she quit and sued for unfair dismissal.
Meanwhile, a tax worker in Croydon successfully sued HMRC for sending her an unwanted birthday card while she was on sick leave, while earlier this week another worker sued her employer for not giving her a farewell card.
While making sexist remarks, bullying and ageism are all obvious red flags in the workplace, some of the actions that can cause a problem are rather less clear.
Legal and HR experts, warn that employers are leaving their businesses vulnerable to lawsuits over seemingly petty or mundane actions that they don’t realise are problematic.
Here, employment law and HR consultant Tina Rahman tells MailOnline her top tips for avoiding situations which may lead to a tribunal or an unexpected sacking.
Everyday workplace behaviour and banter could land you in hot water, and not all employers are abreast of the law, experts have warned
Refusing to say ‘hello’ to your employee
An office worker is set to receive a payout after her boss refused to say ‘hello’ to her three times and gave two colleagues pay rises without telling her.
Andrew Gilchrist refused to greet Nadine Hanson three times when she arrived for work, a Leeds employment tribunal heard.
Mr Gilchrist was reportedly angry at Ms Hanson because he thought she was late but he had no idea she had been at a medical appointment.
Andrew Gilchrist, pictured, refused to greet Nadine Hanson three times when she arrived for work, a Leeds employment tribunal heard
The 62-year-old then gave two colleagues a pay rise without telling her within an hour of confronting her.
His behaviour led to Ms Hanson winning an unfair dismissal claim, with Employment Judge Sarah Davies concluding his behaviour was ‘unreasonable’ and likely to ‘undermine trust and confidence’.
Mr Gilchrist, who had just taken over the business, was ‘deliberately undermining’ regional operations manager Ms Hanson to try to force her to leave, it was heard.
He pushed her phone out of the way when she tried to explain she had an appointment, suggested that she ‘leave’ and went behind her back by giving two staff members pay rises without informing her.
Ms Hanson, who eventually quit and suffered from anxiety due to how she was treated by Mr Gilchrist, has now successfully sued his company for unfair dismissal.
She also won a claim of unauthorised deduction from wages after Mr Gilchrist withheld her sick pay because he thought she was faking being unwell.
Ms Hanson is now in line to receive compensation from Interaction Recruitment Ltd, which has 30 offices across the UK.
Tina Rahman, founder of HR Habitat, a HR and employment law consultancy told MailOnline: ‘Employers should be aware that things like ‘refusing to say hello’ to one person when saying hello to others might, under employment law, create the feeling of being singled out.
‘This is the definition of harassment and employers should be mindful when showing signs of favouritism.
‘What happened with this case as per the judgement papers is that the employee felt so unwanted that this warranted an unfair dismissal claim.
‘Employers do not know of the unwritten terms of contract which we call ‘implied terms’, and here there was a breach of ‘mutual trust and confidence’.
‘If an employee leaves because they feel unwanted, they can still bring a claim of unfair constructive dismissal. You’re not safe because they decided to leave.’
Giving or NOT giving a card
In June, an employment tribunal ruled that sending a card to a colleague who said they don’t want their birthday celebrated could count as harassment.
Marking a staff member’s anniversary could count as ‘unwanted conduct’ if they don’t want to commemorate it, a judgement said.
The conclusion came in the case of a tax worker who successfully sued HMRC after bosses sent her a birthday card when she asked them not to.
Kani Toure was off sick from the Croydon office with work-related stress when she ‘clearly explained’ she wanted correspondence to be kept to a minimum and via email, the tribunal heard.
However, in the month that followed she was contacted ‘more than once every other day’, before being sent a birthday card despite informing her boss the previous year she didn’t want one.
Ms Toure – who suffers from a pituitary gland tumour which is exacerbated by stress – is now in line for compensation after winning several claims of race and disability harassment and discrimination against the government department.
A judge concluded the card and ‘repeated contact’ while off sick was harassment, and added that their duty of care would have been ‘more effectively observed by complying with her expressed wishes’.
HMRC defended its actions stating they had a duty of care to Toure and ‘had to check on her welfare’, but the judge disagreed, saying it contributed to a ‘hostile and intimidating environment’.
Tina Rahman told MailOnline: ‘Under discrimination laws, harassment is known to be unwanted conduct that serious affects an individual (amongst others).
‘This employee was already off sick and stated she did not celebrate birthdays and receiving a card was, to her, harassment. Employers are unaware of the fine line between an obligation to contact employees off on sick leave and ‘over-contacting’ them.
‘Employees on long-term leave due to sickness maybe have additional protection from such unwanted conduct if they fall under the disabled category as outlined in the Equality Act 2010.
‘Advice? Tread carefully when addressing employees who are off work due to long-term sickness!’
Earlier this week, it was revealed that another employee tried to sue her old firm for the opposite reason when she didn’t receive a goodbye card after losing her job.
Karen Conaghan started working as a business liaison lead for the airline group IAG GBS in August 2019.
In December 2021, she was made redundant due to a company wide restructuring.
As one of 40 complaints, she claimed the failure to acknowledge her ‘existence within the company’ was a breach of equality laws.
But the employment tribunal heard that a card had in fact been bought, but since it was only signed by three people when the worker left, her colleague thought it would be ‘insulting’ to give it to her.
Ms Conaghan made a host of claims about her treatment and took the company to the tribunal claiming sexual harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal.
However, they were all were dismissed with the panel ruling Ms Conaghan had adopted a ‘conspiracy theory mentality’ in which she mistook ‘normal workplace interactions’ for something more ‘sinister’.
Not tagging a colleague in a social media post
A supermarket manager was left out of the posts when he was off work with anxiety.
In July, an employment judge in Cardiff found that Matt Hourihan’s failure to include Darren Cooper in social media messages thanking others for ‘showing up for work each day’ was unfavourable treatment and harassment because of a disability.
Mr Cooper worked at the company for more than 30 years and claimed he was so loyal to Sainsbury’s that he had ‘orange blood’ but felt ‘excluded, humiliated and violated’.
The post on LinkedIn read: ‘I’d like to take a moment to celebrate the male leaders in my team and say thank you for all that you do to help make our stores across South Wales, Gloucestershire and Worcester places where colleagues love to work and customers love to shop.
‘All of you do this [while] leading busy lives outside of work too, dealing with health, family and personal issues in the same way that everyone else does, yet you all show up for work each day, put on a name badge and provide support, guidance and leadership to the thousands of colleagues that work [in] our region. Thank you [and] Happy International Men’s Day everyone!’
The post included photos of each of the male store managers in his region, and he named and ‘tagged’ each of them except Mr Cooper.
Mr Hourihan said Mr Cooper had asked to be left alone to recover and he didn’t want to tag him on LinkedIn because it might disturb him with ‘hundreds of alerts’.
Ms Rahman explained: ‘In employment law, discrimination is described via many actions, and one is where there is evidence of unfavourable treatment – which means a person/group of people suffered a detriment after being treated differently to others who do not fall into the same protected characteristic.
‘Not including this employee in the social media posts show a difference in treatment. Employers are unaware that anxiety may be seen as a disability in employment law.
‘As silly as it sounds, employers not including those on sick leave might be lawfully see to ‘create a hostile environment’ or cause humiliation’ amongst other things for said individual.
‘Advice? Ensure the sickness management process is seamless before addressing those not on sick leave.’
Saying ‘back in your day’
Margaret Couperthwaite, a nursing assistant in her 60s, was offended when a younger colleague said an operation used to be free on the NHS ‘back in your day’.
She made a claim for age discrimination, which failed because the judge found the comment hadn’t been said.
But, if it had, Ms Couperthwaite would have won her claim because the phrase was ‘barbed and unwelcome’.
The employment judge said it would have highlighted the age gap between two people, which would be unwelcome conduct.
Meanwhile, a senior executive at an engineering firm was given a whopping £3.2million after suing because he was given a ’45-minute lecture’ describing how he was an ‘old fossil’ and he ‘didn’t know how to deal with millennials’.
Glenn Cowie, an engineering manager on a salary of £300,000, was 58 and worked at the company for over four decades.
Glenn Cowie, 58, (pictured left) won more than £3 million in an age discrimination case. A tribunal hearing was told that CEO Patrick Andre (pictured right) called Mr Cowie an ‘old fossil’ in the middle of a meeting with other executives
In the tribunal’s judgement Employment Judge Adkin said: ‘First, Mr Andre (circle right) commented negatively on [his] age and second, he commented negatively on Mr Cowie’s (circled left) inability to manage younger employees. It was unwanted conduct’
Mr Cowie was the divisional president for Vesuvius’ metals foundry business Foseco International. Pictured: Vesuvius headquarters
The tribunal heard he was dismissed and replaced by a younger female manager who was 51.
Vesuvius, which develops technology for molten metal processes, also brought in a policy for managers not to hire people over 45 but said it was a suggestion, not a rule, to give people ‘enough time left in their career in order to develop’.
The judge said this was ‘unusual’ and suggested ‘assumptions were made about people and their abilities because of their age’.
The tribunal ruled that he was unfairly dismissed and suffered age discrimination.
Mr Cowie’s award comprised £1.38 million for net financial losses, £20,000 for injury to feelings, and an Acas uplift of £1,900. There was also an award for losses associated with Cowie’s relocation and sale of his home.
‘It might sound silly, but don’t discuss ages in the workplace as age is another category with increased protection as part of the same Act.’
Sharing a meme about work
An employment judge in the West Midlands ruled that an assembly operative was unfairly sacked after sharing a Facebook post that her bosses wrongly claimed was an attack on the company.
An employment judge in the West Midlands ruled that Claire Smith was unfairly sacked for sharing a meme similar to this
Claire Smith was fired by Turnock after she shared a meme that made fun of management styles and workplace cultures.
It showed a blindfolded woman sitting in front of another blindfolded person, with the words ‘we’ve all had jobs like this’ and ‘how management acts after you and co-workers clearly point out the issues at work’.
The firm believed the post ‘denigrated’ her bosses and the company and fired her for gross misconduct.
Judge Steward found that the post merited a discussion and a reminder of the importance of social media and internet policies.
But the employment judge ruled that simply sharing the meme was not enough to fire her because ‘it was difficult to say whether anybody looking at this meme would link it directly’ to the business.
Online shopping at work
In 2020, a tribunal found that a facilities assistant was unfairly dismissed for ‘substantial’ non-business related internet use.
The Liverpool tribunal heard that national law firm Weightmans fired Mrs T Hall, who worked there from February 1995 to January 2019.
Mrs Hall had brought her adult daughter and two grandchildren into Weightmans’ offices during her lunch break, and one of the toddlers crawled towards the sliding doors – which concerned bosses.
It was alleged that the children were unaccompanied because she was working on her computer at the time, and a copy of her internet history was requested and revealed she was ‘apparently browsing the net for personal purposes’.
Further investigation showed consistently high use for non-work related searches across most working days.
The tribunal was shown 117 pages of data, which including hundreds of entries on shopping websites including Evans, Shoeaholics, Ryanair, easyJet and Debenhams.
She was fired for gross misconduct because she ‘showed contempt for the trust placed’ and allegedly swore abusively at her co-worker, which she denied.