Desk moves, demotions and pranks over sandwiches. Two recent Employment Tribunal cases highlight the wonderful world of people management.
1. Mr N Walker v Robsons (Rickmansworth) Limited
An instruction to move desks amounted to constructive dismissal, according to the Watford Employment Tribunal. This is a first-level case, and so it is not binding on any other Tribunals, but it is a very interesting glimpse into the world of workplaces and the meaning of “symbolic status” -such as how much it matters where someone is told to sit.
Facts of the case
The claimant, Mr Walker, had worked for Robsons since 2015 as an estate agent. He was moved from his original managerial post in the Rickmansworth branch to the office in Chorleywood. However, the arrangement was short-lived, and he soon moved back to his original office, unaware that he would now be sharing his role as Branch Manager with someone else. This had at no point been communicated to him.
He was unhappy about this, and the matter escalated when he was moved to a new desk. He had previously sat at the Manager’s desk- a specific place that was said to hold “symbolic significance”. On his return, his new co-manager was instead sitting at that desk (which had previously been Mr Walker’s). Mr Walker was told to sit in the middle of the office- a place that apparently had no practical or hierarchical significance. Mr Walker felt that this seating arrangement would undermine his status and did not agree to it. This led to heated discussions in which swear words were deployed by his employer, and he was criticised for being “a 53-year-old man making a fuss about a desk”. Mr Walker was threatened with disciplinary action, and so he threatened to resign. His employer told him to “go on then”, and he did so. Whilst Mr Walker later tried to retract his resignation, he was ignored. He later brought claims in the Employment Tribunal for (a) constructive dismissal and (b) discrimination on the basis of his age.
Employment Tribunal decision
The ET held that Mr Walker had indeed been constructively dismissed. In particular, the employer was guilty of a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence on the following grounds:
• Mr Walker was not told that he would be returning to a form of job share, and this was behaviour likely to destroy or seriously damage the working relationship;
• He was told to sit at another desk in a different space, which amounted to a demotion- the ET said that this was the “logical conclusion” for him to draw from the change, particularly when coupled with the overall poor communication; and
• He was shouted at, threatened with disciplinary action and told off for “making a fuss” when questioning the plans.
However, Mr Walker’s claim for age discrimination failed as the ET found that there was no less favourable treatment based on his age – the ET saying that “not every reference to a person’s age is an act of unlawful discrimination”.
What to take from this case
This case is perhaps unusual, and most employers might have been able to work through these issues without the matter ending up before a Judge. However, it does highlight the need for good communication when changes are planned, and it also tells us not to underestimate the significance of “status symbols” to employees. This can often take the form of job titles and reporting lines, and this case tells us that this extends to things like seating arrangements, too. If you are planning any kind of change, then make sure this is communicated clearly and in good time-and that an employee’s concerns are heard and addressed.
2. Mr B F Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Limited
A garage apprentice who threatened his colleagues after they poked holes in his sandwiches was found to have been fairly dismissed, according to the Bristol Employment Tribunal. Mr Forrester-Hayes had accused a colleague of “tampering with his lunch” as well as “smashing his crisps” and chose to retaliate by sending messages to the person he believed was responsible, saying he would “mess him up” and cause damage to his toolbox and his bike.
Interestingly, Mr Forrester-Hayes tried to argue that his impulsive reaction was caused by his ADHD and therefore his dismissal was unfair. This case provides insight into the ET’s approach when an employee is dismissed because of conduct arising from a disability.
The background
The Claimant had worked for the Respondent since the age of 16 as an apprentice. Pranks were apparently not unusual, and he had already received a warning in 2021 after his intense reactions to such “japes” involving a tool being wrapped in electrical tape.
On this occasion, in mid-2023, he was visiting the tea room and found that his lunch had been tampered with. He told a colleague he thought he knew who had done this and that “I am going to f*ck him up for it.” He then sent messages to everyone on the early shift, asking them if they knew who was responsible. In a separate message to the person he suspected, he said: “If i find out it was u … ur toolbox is f*cked.”
These messages came to the employer’s attention, and the Claimant was suspended. He told the investigating manager that he had ADHD, and an occupational health report was duly obtained. This confirmed that whilst “interpersonal communication difficulties” may be a factor of his condition, the fact was that he still knew right from wrong. His condition was considered as mitigation for his actions, but it was found that his repeated threats and disciplinary history meant he should be dismissed for gross misconduct.
Mr Forrester-Hayes brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination before the Bristol Employment Tribunal.
Employment Tribunal decision
Mr Hayes argued that his impulsive reaction (i.e. the threats to colleagues) was caused by his ADHD. Whilst the ET was prepared to accept that his ADHD had something to do with him sending the abusive messages and making the threats, they found that it was not an inevitable consequence of him having ADHD and the link between his ADHD and him sending the messages did not mean he could take no responsibility for his actions. Important in this finding was that the messages were sent over a period of time and not in the heat of the moment.
In terms of the unfair dismissal complaint, the ET found it was within the range of reasonable responses for Scania to dismiss him. This claim therefore failed.
The claims of disability discrimination also failed, the ET finding that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – i.e. of protecting staff from aggressive and threatening behaviour.
What to take from this case
Neurodivergence is a relatively new and emerging area in employment law. This employer was correct to obtain medical evidence about the ADHD and take it into account before taking action. There will be situations in which workers are prone to certain types of behaviour, and employers won’t be expected to know all about the conditions, but will be expected to be aware and to seek further information.
What ties these cases together?
The cases both feature impulsive behaviour and reactions to things that might sometimes seem relatively minor. They deal with the importance of context, from seeing things from another point of view, and, most importantly, they show the importance of good communication in promoting strong workplace relations. Consider how you react to workplace conflict, big or small; how well you communicate change and deal with complaints. Finally, what kind of culture does your workplace have? An open forum for discussion where change is communicated and conflicts resolved, or one where tempers flare? One thing is for sure: employment law is never dull!
While workplace disputes can arise in any organisation, many issues can be avoided or effectively managed by taking proactive steps to understand and meet the diverse needs of your workforce. Recognising individual differences — whether related to communication styles, perceived status, or neurodiversity — can help mitigate conflict and foster a more inclusive and respectful working environment. To support this, we are holding a webinar on Neurodiversity and Awareness on 26 June, exploring how employers can better understand neurodivergent conditions and create more supportive workplace practices. Click here to register.
