Latest news with #employmenttribunals
The Independent
6 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
The WhatsApp messages that could get you sacked
It's late evening, and your phone vibrates with some banter from colleagues. You join the conversation and go to bed feeling part of the work community. You then wake up and have a feeling of apprehension as to how the messages will be perceived. WhatsApp might have started as a casual messaging app for friends, but it has now firmly become embedded in workplace communication – and increasingly in workplace conflicts, too. WhatsApp chats have also been used to corroborate or refute claims in employment tribunals. An employee might claim they were promised a pay rise or flexible hours via WhatsApp, for example. But on the other hand, employers have also used WhatsApp logs to prove misconduct. This evidence has included sharing confidential information. In the workplace, WhatsApp chats have replaced many casual real-life conversations. Colleagues create groups to coordinate work, message each other after hours and vent their frustrations in private messages. Although this feels informal, it can leave employees vulnerable. But when disputes escalate to legal action, these messages can help judges understand what really happened. Tribunals treat WhatsApp messages like any other document. We examined more than 2,000 cases brought to UK employment tribunals since 2019 that involved WhatsApp. The findings reveal a surprising range of ways in which these casual chats became evidence. WhatsApp conversations have increasingly played a crucial role in misconduct and discrimination disputes, being used as evidence of harassment or inappropriate behaviour. The messages are also cited in unfair dismissal and contract claims, especially where informal work communications and digital records were seen as central to the case. In 2018, 48 cases brought to employment tribunals involved WhatsApp messages. By 2024, that had climbed to 562. The cases span a wide range of jurisdictions, but unfair dismissal, contract breaches, harassment and discrimination were dominant. From the cases we examined, several themes were clear. 1. Removal or exclusion from a WhatsApp group In the case of Ms B Djagbo v Women's Health Dulwich Ltd, the claimant successfully brought a claim for unfavourable treatment due to pregnancy and maternity. This followed a series of incidents that took place after she informed her employer of her pregnancy. Several actions made her feel as though her employment was being prematurely ended, including being removed from the workplace WhatsApp group chat. The tribunal awarded her almost £20,000. 2. Discriminatory messages or harassment via WhatsApp In the Mr D Robson v NGP Utilities Ltd case, the claimant is a gay man and brought a complaint of harassment. This included a series of inappropriate and offensive incidents at work, notably, a WhatsApp group message from a colleague. The message was part of a wider pattern of jokes targeting gay colleagues. The employment tribunal awarded him more than £36,000. 3. Termination of employment via WhatsApp The case of Miss J Hodkinson v B&R Care Ltd highlights a pregnant care worker who was awarded more than £40,000 in compensation after being unfairly dismissed via WhatsApp. The fact that the dismissal was carried out informally and insensitively supported the tribunal's findings of 'procedural and substantive unfairness'. 4. WhatsApp communications submitted as evidence The Mr M D Black v Alain Charles Publishing Ltd tribunal noted that the claimant's evidence was consistent with WhatsApp message screenshots included in the evidence bundle. As a result, compensation of almost £100,000 was awarded. WhatsApp groups can also offer a window into workplace culture. Tribunals have seen examples of co-workers using WhatsApp to share sexist and racist jokes or to gossip about colleagues. With remote and flexible working, these chats illustrate a growing tension between constant connectivity and work burnout. The tribunal cases show just how deeply WhatsApp has become part of working life, blurring the line between personal and professional. Colleagues chat the way friends do. But when working relationships sour or rules are broken, each of these informal chats carries legal weight. What someone thought was a single throwaway remark in a private conversation can later be dissected as part of a wider body of evidence. There have been cases where an employer was ordered to hand over work-related WhatsApp exchanges, and others where an employee's own messages were used against them. It's a clear lesson. Privacy in digital communication is never guaranteed. Even encrypted messages can become public in a courtroom. WhatsApp dos and don'ts The volume of references to WhatsApp in tribunal cases frames some key lessons for both employees and employers. In a nutshell, if you wouldn't write it in a company email or say it in a meeting, don't put it into WhatsApp. Jokes can be misinterpreted, and offensive remarks don't just go away. Many have learned this the hard way. Using WhatsApp to share instructions and decisions might seem convenient, but it shouldn't replace a formal process. And for employers, it's time to update communication policies, including guidelines on after-hours messaging, the use of group chats and respecting expectations of inclusivity. Banning WhatsApp might not be practical, but setting out expectations is important. Even a policy stating that any work-related communication on personal messaging apps should adhere to the company's expected code of conduct is a start. Many people are unaware that a private chat can reappear as evidence. Knowing that a tasteless joke on WhatsApp could support a harassment claim potentially costing an unlimited fine, or that ignoring a late-night work message might be used as evidence of poor performance, will harden most people to conduct more mindful communication. Jonathan Lord is a Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Employment Law at the University of Salford. Gordon Fletcher is an Associate Dean, Research and Innovation at the University of Salford. Saad Baset is an Associate Lecturer & Researcher, Salford Business School at the University of Salford.
Telegraph
23-05-2025
- Telegraph
Welcome to the 2025 workplace, where sighing could count as discrimination
One of Britain's biggest banks has ordered staff still cheekily working from home to turn up or face a cut in their pay. Actually, it's a slice of their HSBC bonuses that will be affected, so it's hard for the rest of us suckers to sympathise. Besides, they only need to get dressed and turn up three days a week, which is still a huge skive. Or it would be, were it not for the fact that staff who have gone WFH -feral will be shocked to learn how office life has changed while they were shopping online and taking long naps with the cat. For a start, sighing in frustration at a colleague is the latest human right to be infringed in the parallel universe that is the world of employment tribunals. Oh yes. Those of you still baffled by the recent mahoosive payout to the NHS worker who, among other incidents, took umbrage at being compared to Darth Vader after colleagues filled in a larky online Star Wars personality test on her behalf, better take a deep breath. And asphyxiate yourselves – because if you are caught making 'exaggerated exhales' you too could be found guilty of discrimination. Nothing is as it once was. Eye-rolling has gone the way of the fax machine. Huffing (including but not limited to) puffing? Beyond the pale. As for all the other once perfectly standard interactions between stressed, busy humans, all I can say is get yourself lawyered up before you even think of tutting over an unwashed coffee cup. And, in case it passed you by, calling a man 'bald' is comparable to commenting on the size of a woman's breasts and amounts to sexual harassment, according to a West Yorkshire employment tribunal in 2022. The ruling came in a case between electrician Tony Finn and his manufacturing firm employers. Speaking after the hearing, Mr Finn said he hoped the judgment would stop other men being 'verbally assaulted and intimidated because they are bald'. This new ruling about sighing came in the case of Robert Watson, a software engineer with ADHD who successfully sued a tech company after complaining about his manager's 'sighing and exaggerated exhales'. He's now in line for compensation from Roke Manor Research, inventors of the Hawk-Eye ball tracking system – who, ironically, never saw that one coming. What a difference a decade makes. Back in 2014, the University of Warwick was forced to reinstate a professor after his nine-month suspension for 'inappropriate sighing' in job interviews, and for giving off negative vibes and making ironic comments. Frankly, I think he sounds great. Either way, a tribunal cleared him of the charges; I do hope he greeted the news with an exaggerated exhale. Here in 2025, it's now a behavioural minefield. No thanks needed all you HSBC employees, just something to ponder before you try and cram your feet into proper shoes and struggle into work three whole days a week. The cat doesn't care if you sigh, or call it bald. What price freedom?
Telegraph
15-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Rayner's workers' rights plan triggers scramble to hire more judges
Ministers are drawing up plans to hire hundreds of new judges amid fears that Angela Rayner's workers' rights reforms will overwhelm employment tribunals with claims. Justin Madders, the employment minister, told business leaders that the Government was 'working closely with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to ensure the whole employment tribunal system works better'. Speaking at a conference in Westminster, he said: 'Case loads and long delays are the norm – this is in nobody's interest, not in workers' interests and certainly not in the interests of the majority of good businesses who just want to resolve issues quickly and move on. 'We are taking steps to address this – we're recruiting more judges and we're employing additional legal case workers. But we do want to go further.' The plans come amid intense lobbying by business groups and unions, who have raised concerns that Ms Rayner's looming Employment Rights Bill threatens to overwhelm the already backlogged employment tribunal system. The Bill promises to strengthen worker and unions rights, giving staff the right to take employers to tribunal for unfair dismissal from day one on a job. Currently, staff must be employed for at least two years before qualifying for this right. The changes mean an extra 9m staff will have the right to take companies to court for grievances and businesses fear the changes will trigger an avalanche of new claims. Rupert Soames, the head of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), has warned that the reforms will create 'an adventure playground' for lawyers. Backlogs in the employment tribunal system are already at record levels, with almost 50,000 cases waiting to be resolved at the end of 2024, according to Littler, a law firm. Employment tribunals are meant to be a last resort but claims have spiked since 2023. 'Everyone recognises that the current tribunal backlog is way too long and that the Employment Rights Bill reforms will increase that further,' said one source aware of the Government's plans. Ministers have circulated an action plan to business groups and unions that states issues should be addressed before they escalate to tribunal level, ensuring aggrieved workers 'receive what they are owed,' according to those who have seen the document. One person aware of the plans complained that companies were being forced to settle staff claims 'even when they believe there's no wrongdoing just to be able to move on'. Another said: 'Businesses are fed up settling claims they think they'll win because they don't want to spend £10,000 on lawyers and be distracted for 18 months'. Around £12,000 is awarded on average for successful unfair dismissal claims, £23,000 for race discrimination, £38,000 for sex discrimination and more than £45,000 for disability discrimination. Last week, an NHS worker was awarded almost £30,000 after a colleague compared her to Darth Vader. The Employment Rights Bill, which is being overseen by Ms Rayner, is currently working its way though Parliament. Lords are examining the legislation and have raised concerns that it could leave the country at the mercy of unions. Asked about the timing of the reforms at a conference on Thursday, organised by workplace conduct body Acas, Mr Madders said the Government was currently working on a timeline to present to businesses. The biggest reforms, such as day one rights, are not expected to come into effect until next autumn at the earliest. A government spokesman said: 'We regularly meet businesses to ensure they have their say and are given the time to prepare for any changes as we deliver our pro-business, pro-worker agenda through our plan for change. 'We are working to ensure employment tribunals are prepared to handle any increases to their caseload. This includes the recruitment of approximately 1,000 judges and tribunal members this year.'
