October 16th 2024.
Andrew Gilchrist, the owner of a company called Interaction Recruitment Ltd, had recently acquired a new office in Scunthorpe, UK. He had traveled there to meet with his new employees, including Nadine Hanson, the recruitment manager. However, things took an unpleasant turn when Mr. Gilchrist deliberately ignored Ms. Hanson and refused to greet her when she arrived for work one day.
During an employment tribunal hearing, it was revealed that Ms. Hanson had greeted her new boss three times, but he chose to ignore her each time. This behavior was deemed unreasonable and calculated to undermine trust and confidence in the workplace. It was also discovered that Mr. Gilchrist was angry with Ms. Hanson because he believed she was late to work, but he was unaware that she had a medical appointment.
Despite knowing this, Mr. Gilchrist proceeded to give two of Ms. Hanson's colleagues a pay raise without informing her, just an hour after confronting her about her supposed lateness. This led to Ms. Hanson winning her claim against the company, with the Employment Judge Sarah Davies ruling that Mr. Gilchrist's actions were unacceptable.
It was also revealed that Mr. Gilchrist had formed a snap judgement about Ms. Hanson during their first meeting, where he believed she was not pulling her weight at work. This judgement was made without proper discussion or understanding of her role and responsibilities. A few days later, Mr. Gilchrist made an unannounced visit to the office and found Ms. Hanson arriving late due to a medical appointment. Despite her attempts to explain, he ignored her and even pushed her phone away when she tried to show him evidence of her appointment.
Things escalated when Mr. Gilchrist suggested that Ms. Hanson should leave if she didn't want to be there, to which she replied that she had been with the company for 20 years and would only leave if made redundant. The meeting became heated, with Ms. Hanson trying to explain her role to Mr. Gilchrist, but he refused to listen. He later claimed that he could not remember whether he had greeted her on that day, but the tribunal found his claims unconvincing.
Within an hour of the confrontation, Mr. Gilchrist gave pay raises to Ms. Hanson's two direct reports without informing her. This left her feeling humiliated and undervalued. She eventually handed in her notice, citing that she had been made to feel undervalued and undermined by Mr. Gilchrist's behavior. She was even signed off with anxiety during her notice period, but Mr. Gilchrist refused to pay her sick pay, claiming that he didn't believe her.
The tribunal concluded that Mr. Gilchrist's actions were implausible and deliberate. He had deliberately ignored Ms. Hanson's greetings on the day of the incident and later offered pay raises to her colleagues without discussing it with her. This showed that he had no intention of keeping her on the team. Judge Davies ruled that his behavior was calculated to undermine trust and confidence in the workplace, and while it may not be a fundamental breach of contract, it was still capable of contributing to such a breach.
As a result, Ms. Hanson was awarded compensation for both unfair dismissal and unauthorized deduction from wages. It was clear that Mr. Gilchrist's actions had caused her anxiety, sleepless nights, and upset, leading to her ultimately leaving the company. The amount of compensation she will receive will be determined at a later date.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
