Potentially, but not likely if there is no pattern or ulterior motive to this. As can been seen from the case described below, the wider circumstances will usually be important in deciding whether the conduct in question was improper or unlawful.
The Telegraph (subscription may be required) leads with the statement “Not saying hello to a colleague could break law, says judge”. Let’s now consider what this actually means.
In the case about which the Telegraph has written, Ms N Hanson v Interactive Recruitment Specialists Ltd, the Employment Tribunal (ET) made several findings of fact, including:
“46.1 Mr Gilchrist did ignore the Claimant when she arrived at work on 26 September 2023. He did so because he was unhappy that she was, in his perception, late for work. He did not know that she was at a medical appointment.
46.2 Mr Gilchrist took the Claimant into the back room and told her that if she did not want to be there, she should leave. He pushed aside her phone when she tried to explain that she was late that day because she had been to a medical appointment. He had already formed the view that she did not pull her weight and was “dumping” all the work on her colleagues and was critical of her for that. He had not had any proper discussion or conversation with her about what work she did, where and when. When the Claimant told him that she would not be leaving and that the only way she would be going after 20 years was if she was made redundant, he determined that she no longer had a future in the business and his subsequent actions were consistent with that.
46.3 Mr Gilchrist offered the Claimant’s two direct reports pay rises, by sending them emails no more than an hour after this discussion, while they and the Claimant were present in the office. He did not discuss this with the Claimant, although it would be usual to do so. That was because he did not see the Claimant as having a future in the business.
46.4 Mr Gilchrist emailed the Claimant’s direct report later that day commenting on the Claimant’s being at work and “getting stuck in.”
The ET then went on to find that, in the wider context of the situation including that Mr Gilchrist was the owner and director of Ms Hanson’s new employer (following a business transfer), Mr Gilchrist’s conduct was “without reasonable or proper cause” and “calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between Ms Hanson and the [Company]”.
The ET also found that Ms Hanson had resigned in response to Mr Gilchrist’s conduct.
The ET, therefore, decided the Ms Hanson was unfairly dismissed.
The reality is that not being courteous or civil at work may have a legal consequence, but, as illustrated by this case, the context will likely be all important in deciding this.
This blog was written by Ben Lindsay, Solicitor at didlaw.
