Sometimes following the HR rule book is not always the right approach. Quentin Colborn explores the value of knowing when a pragmatic line is more appropriate.

A recent posting on ‘Any Answers’ posed a situation in which a lady on maternity leave contacted her employer to make arrangements for her return to work only to find that the company had relocated to London; members’ responses ranged from letting it go and moving on to challenging the company and making a claim for compensation.

In many ways I think these two responses sum up the dilemma facing both individuals and businesses today. Many things in life are a risk, whether it be dangerous sports or walking down the High Street. The real issue is assessing the extent of the threat while evaluating the price of failure.

As regards employment matters there clearly has to be a separation between genuine cases and ‘ambulance chasers’.

One case I know of involved an employee crashing a company van into five parked cars. It was a clear and dry day. The investigation uncovered what had happened. The member of staff had been speeding in order to reclaim his designated waiting point having been delayed while visiting a lady who wasn’t his wife!

He was dismissed by the company concerned and duly took them to an Employment Tribunal. The ruling showed that he didn’t have a leg to stand on and eventually the case was settled for a nuisance value of £500 – cheaper than the price of the managers transportation to Belfast!

It is hard to have any sympathy for situations like this but there are other cases which deserve genuine compassion.

A mother concerned about her 30-year-old son who had 14 years service with his employer recently approached me. The story is convoluted, but eventually it transpired that the son had at one stage slept with his boss’s ex-girlfriend. When the discovery was made, the boss physically assaulted the son and in no uncertain terms told him never to come back to work again.

The question I was involved in was working out whether this could be deemed to be a clear case of constructive dismissal. In my opinion it was. The son didn’t have a clear understanding of his rights, but if he’d pursued the matter I think he would have won his case.

Work is not always straightforward, problems do occur and people do make mistakes of judgement – both employees and employers. But the issue is how we handle them. Initial recourse to either the law (in the case of employees) or the handbook (for employers) is not necessarily the answer.

The way forward has to be a pragmatic approach that recognises that where there is a wrong it needs to be righted, but where there has been no significant impact there need not be a claim or other action.

Those of us schooled in a pragmatic approach to HR will know that breaking the rules is sometimes necessary and sometimes one has to take a commercial risk.

I guess that many have been in situations where we know that an employment relationship cannot continue and it will have to be ended in some way – even if that means the prospect of a tribunal claim and perhaps a settlement. But on occasions it can be worth it.

So where does this leave us? My view is that individuals normally invest a lot in their jobs and deserve to be treated as people and should not have their rights simply walked across by an employer looking for an easy way out.

Equally, employers should not find themselves at Tribunal for relatively small breaches of procedure that make little difference to the outcome of a situation – the only thing I would say is that there is no excuse for employers ignorance these days, information and advice being so easily available.

What has been your experiences of the treatment of individuals in difficult circumstances?

About the author
Quentin Colborn is an independent HR consultant who helps organisations deal with employment relations issues. He can be contacted on T: 07946 873274 or at Quentin@qcpeople.co.uk

Colborn’s Corner: series articles

• Mind your Ps and Qs




• Assessment Centres – are they worth it?




• What’s in a name?




• Disciplinary dilemmas divulged




• Employee engagement – realism or wishful thinking?




• Internal communication – who told you about that?




• Is there a place for ethics in HR?




• Employment Law in 2005 – a case of over-regulation?




• Pensions – whose crisis is it?




• The 2005 Election – what does it mean for HR?