An engineering professor has been awarded £1 million from the University of Edinburgh, following a decade-long discrimination case. While payouts of this size are rare, the case serves as a warning for employers on the financial realities of grievance failures.
Sweeping staff concerns under the rug will only cause them to spiral later down the line. And when concerns are met with poor treatment, businesses risk facing serious legal consequences – like an employment tribunal.
The University of Edinburgh‘s grievance failure holds more than one lesson
With claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation, there are multiple lessons to be learnt from this case. Ultimately, employers must keep support and empathy at the forefront when investigating concerns. And this should remain the focus throughout the entire process.
The importance of early action
Professor Sheikholeslami joined the University of Edinburgh as chair of chemical process engineering and was tasked with setting up a new lab. Early on, she raised concerns about a lack of support. But the university didn’t properly address her complaint, despite having a grievance policy in place.
These early stages of a complaint offer employers the opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation into staff concerns and provide a fully reasoned outcome. Even when a concern is raised informally, employers mustn’t be ignored. The complaint should still be investigated and potentially escalated into formal procedures if necessary.
Miscommunication creates risk
The tribunal also found “miscommunication” between the university and the professor regarding her duties. While job roles can evolve depending on business needs, failing to properly communicate changes can pose a real risk to businesses.
To avoid lengthy tribunals related to this, two steps are key:
- Update documents to reflect any changes in an employee’s role. As a minimum, set out a broad outline of expected duties and where this could be subject to change.
- Have regular check-ins with employees, especially early on in their role. Open up a two-way dialogue to help pick up concerns or identify conflict.
These conversations allow for a smoother road into employees settling in and avoids frustration or resentment building up from unanswered questions, project bottlenecks or a lack of support.
Handling stress-related absence with care
Work-related stress and depression led to the professor taking a two-year sickness absence. Following this, her pay was cut with minimal guidance from the University of Edinburgh, which again failed to follow their own procedures.
Organisations must provide support and empathy when dealing with long-term absence, particularly when tied to work-related stress. The following steps are key:
- Conduct welfare review meetings to monitor the situation and identify where reasonable adjustments may be necessary, such as phased returns to work.
- Gauge the level of contact the employee is comfortable with during their absence, and prevent the business overstepping the boundaries.
- Obtain medical information from an occupational expert as the absence progresses to better understand the situation, the prognosis and additional support required.
Stress and disability: Knowing the legal threshold
Long-term sickness, as in this case, may also be classified as a disability under the Equality Act (2010). The employee is protected under this law if the sickness results in a ‘long-term’ physical or mental impairment that substantially affects daily activities.
Although stemming from an unfair dismissal claim, the discrimination upheld in this case ultimately lifted the cap on the compensation awarded (normally 12 months’ salary).
Having robust sickness procedures in place is important, but not enough. Managers also need to be properly trained on their use. Providing regular reviews and refreshers is essential for any business, regardless of size.
Disciplinary processes: stick to the script
When it comes to disciplinary issues, the ACAS Code of Practice is a helpful guiding point. While not prescriptive, the guidelines are considered by tribunals in unfair dismissal claims. When recommended procedures are not followed compensation awards can increase by up to 25%.
Victimisation and a flawed dismissal process
After launching a discrimination review, the University of Edinburgh terminated the professor’s employment due to an expiring work permit. But the process fell short.
While it may be true that alternative roles were not available, there was no action to explore options, no meetings to discuss the decision, and no chance for the individual to comment before her employment was terminated.
With years of concerns and complaints in the background, it’s easy to see how this may have been perceived as the university’s ‘get out of jail free’ card. The institution failed to take the professor through a fair process that allowed her to comment on the situation. Nor did they give her the right to appeal once her dismissal had been confirmed.
Avoid the shortcut: listen before you act
Employers must tread carefully when choosing to dismiss an employee who has raised complaints or concerns. No matter how much of a cast-iron case businesses may assume they have, it’s essential to give the individual a chance to comment and to provide reasonable support at all stages.
Without this, employers risk entering a collision course likely to end with similar claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation or discrimination.
Consistency and care matter
It’s clear that the University of Edinburgh failed to provide consistent support for the professor.
Taking the easy way out of dismissing staff concerns will only add fuel to the fire of resentment. Without a proper outlet for their complaints, tribunals become a last resort for many employees that could have been avoided with consistent support, established procedures and a listening ear.
