An employee of Talbot Underwriting Services Ltd - a Lloyd’s of London underwriter - who suffered significant incidents of bullying and was ‘berated’ in front of his colleagues in the middle of an open plan office, has won an employment tribunal lawsuit.

According to a judgment by Employment Judge Emery at the London Central Employment Tribunal, Liam Vaughan - an accounts assistant - was subjected to ‘significant incidents of bullying’ from management during his employment at Talbot Underwriting Services.

Mr Vaughan had worked for his employer for four years with no formal issues before the bullying incident. In 2017 and 2018, his performance was described as good by his manager.  

However, in August 2017 a member of the same team went on long-term sick leave and Mr Vaughan undertook additional work for which he lacked the relevant experience.  In 2018, this was followed by another colleague leaving and Mr Vaughan then undertook further work in which he had no experience.  Two members of the finance team, at a grievance hearing, stated that they believed he had not been ‘given the appropriate training or guidance’.

In February 2019, an incident occurred where Mr Vaughan was called to his manager’s table in the middle of the open-plan office and ‘berated’ in front of his colleagues.  Mr Vaughan stated that her manner ‘was extremely shocking and belittling’.  He did, however, agree that she had good reason to raise the issues. Mr Vaughan told the tribunal.

“This is not the first time I have been subject to this behaviour …. With this continuous ridicule I am left in a vulnerable position which undoubtedly has an impact on the work I produce.”

Other staff members who had witnessed the incident stated that they were embarrassed and uncomfortable at Mr Vaughan’s treatment.

Later the same day, Mr Vaughan offered to resign and told the tribunal, …” with the benefit of hindsight given what happened afterwards I should have resigned at that point.” 

Mr Vaughan raised a grievance and was interviewed by a senior manager and an HR manager.  The grievance was upheld with the line manager in question being given a final written warning - with the recommendation of disciplinary action - and a different line manager was appointed. However, Mr Vaughan was signed off work for some weeks with anxiety, tension and poor sleep.

On Mr Vaughan’s return to work, he noticed that he was being treated differently by some staff, including senior management who would have acknowledged him prior to his grievance hearing.

In March 2019 it was noticed by a senior manager that Mr Vaughan’s performance standards had slipped. Despite that, the issue was never raised to Mr Vaughan for explanation and in early August 2019, his line manager also raised concerns.

During this time, Mr Vaughan had been involved in several conversations with HR and finance team managers – during which he told them he wished to resign.  He was persuaded to withdraw his resignation letter by the finance team senior manager - and he did so on the assumption the company would not pursue a formal capability process.  He thought he would be ‘given a chance on a fairer playing field’.  

In late August, Mr Vaughan received a letter inviting him to a formal ‘stage one capability meeting’ as his line manager felt he had an ‘attitude and negativity and there was no improvement’.   Mr Vaughan believed this was a deceitful act on the part of management - refusing his resignation letter in order to enable a written warning to be issued with intent to prevent him going to tribunal.

Mr Vaughan finally resigned in September 2019.

Judge Emery, in his ruling, stated that he was satisfied that the coldness shown to Mr Vaughan by senior management contributed to his view that his employer ‘was not happy with him following his grievance - and it contributed to his view that the respondent no longer wanted him to work for them’ and as such his claim of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded.

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director at Croner - said:

“As seen here, the company’s clear mistreatment of an employee as a direct result of their complaint was a critical factor that led to them being found liable. Employers should always remember that the way staff are supervised is crucial to their continued productivity, job satisfaction and retention.”