“To Card or Not to Card: That is the Question”
Author: Ben Edwards
Key Contact: Chris Aldridge
A recent Employment Tribunal case (Karen Conaghan v IAG GBS Limited) saw the claimant, Conaghan, raise 40 separate complaints against her former employer. These included allegations of sexual harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal. Conaghan, along with other employees, was made redundant in December 2021 as part of a restructuring of the company.
The Claimant’s allegations
Conaghan claimed that she experienced bullying and harassment in the workplace, which, she argued, affected her mental well-being. She cited instances of derogatory comments and a lack of support from management as contributing factors to her claim and subsequent termination.
One particular allegation at the heart of her claim has gained a fair amount of publicity in the media. Conaghan alleged harassment and raised a grievance against her colleague as she did not receive a leaving card or any acknowledgement of her contribution or existence with the employer. Unknown to Conaghan, there was, in fact, a card circulated to be signed by her fellow employees. However, by the date she had left, only two or three people had signed it. Her colleague believed that it would have been more insulting to give her the card than not to give her the card at all. This was a busy time for managers in the company as they were dealing with the restructuring, and monitoring card signatures was obviously not on top of the to-do list. In addition, Conaghan was not the only one to not receive a leaving card before their departure from the company. A collection for her was arranged at a later date and ultimately she did receive a gift card from the employer.
Conclusion
Despite her numerous claims, the Tribunal ruled against Conaghan, dismissing all claims of sexual harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal. This included dismissing the claimant’s allegation of harassment by not receiving the card, as the Tribunal did not consider there was anything inconsistent in the employer’s behaviour within the circumstances.
The Tribunal described Conaghan’s approach to the situation as one rooted in a “conspiracy-theory mentality.” It was noted that many of her claims stemmed from normal workplace interactions that she had misinterpreted, and that the actions were harmless interactions typical in a workplace setting.
This case is a stark reminder for employers of the vast array of allegations that can be raised by employees, arising from even innocuous interactions in the normal course of employment. There is a fine line in distinguishing between workplace inconveniences and legal breaches, and this case reinforces the need for employers to be vigilant in ensuring that employees feel safe and supported in voicing their concerns, whether these concerns are of any substance or not.
If you need assistance with any employment-related matters, contact our Employment team.
