And speaking of deep probes brings me to the case of Hanson v Interaction Recruitment Specialists Ltd 2024 in which the Employment Tribunal considered some hasty conclusions about a home-based employee’s work ethic.

Miss Hanson worked for four days a week and was in charge of managing a team of three. She often worked from home with the approval of her line manager. In September 2023, Mr Gilchrist, a director, attended Miss Hanson’s office. This meeting was apparently to get to know the team after Interaction Recruitment Specialists (IRS) had acquired Miss Hanson’s previous employer. At this meeting it was mentioned that Miss Hanson often worked from home and rarely came into the office. Mr Gilchrist apparently formed the impression that Miss Hanson left most of the work to her colleagues and did very little work herself. 

About a week later, Mr Gilchrist attended the office again. On this occasion Miss Hanson was late to the office due to a medical appointment. When she arrived, she said good morning to Mr Gilchrist three times, but he ignored her. He then told her to go into the meeting room. Miss Hanson and Mr Gilchrist then had a heated discussion. She tried to show him evidence of the medical appointment on her phone but he pushed this away. Mr Gilchrist told her “I suggest if you don’t want to be here that you leave.” She responded: “After 20 years of working for the company, the only way I will be leaving is if you make me redundant.”. 

The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Gilchrist’s visit to the office was not pre-arranged. He arrived unannounced because he wanted to check in on Miss Hanson following their first meeting. The tribunal reasoned that Mr Gilchrist was unhappy that Miss Hanson arrived late, and that is why he ignored her. 

After this meeting, Mr Gilchrist emailed Ms Smith and Ms Waite, who both reported directly to Miss Hanson, and gave them a pay rise. He did not discuss this with Miss Hanson first, which was unusual. Miss Hanson said that she felt humiliated that Mr Gilchrist had offered pay raises to her direct reports in this way.

Later that day Mr Gilchrist sent an email to Ms Smith saying it was good to see Miss Hanson “getting stuck in today.” Miss Hanson said she felt humiliated that Mr Gilchrist, who barely knew her, was emailing her direct report and commenting about her in that way. 

Shortly after, Miss Hanson interviewed for and was offered a job with another employer. She subsequently resigned and gave eight weeks’ notice. In her resignation letter she stated that she felt undervalued, her work ethic had been questioned, and she had been undermined. The ET accepted that these were her reasons for resigning. 

Miss Hanson asked to be put on garden leave for her notice period. Mr Gilchrist refused this and required Miss Hanson to work from the office, as he did not want her working from home either. This caused Miss Hanson a lot of anxiety, so much so that she was signed off sick. Miss Hanson was not paid her contractual sick pay for the time she was off and no explanation was given for this. The tribunal heard that Mr Gilchrist did not believe that she was genuinely sick. 

Miss Hanson subsequently brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. 

The ET reasoned that Mr Gilchrist’s conduct was “calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence” between Miss Hanson and the employer. Mr Gilchrist had formed an opinion that Miss Hanson “did not pull her weight” and that she had no future at the company. He never had a proper discussion with her to learn how she performed her role. The ET found that there was no reasonable or proper cause for Mr Gilchrist to:

• ignore Miss Hanson when she said good morning; 
• not listen to Miss Hanson’s explanation that she was at a medical appointment and to tell her that if she did not want to be there she should leave;
• offer pay rises to Miss Hanson’s direct reports without consulting with her;
• email Ms Smith the comment about Miss Hanson getting “stuck in”. 

The ET concluded that this conduct altogether amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Miss Hanson resigned in response to this breach. She was therefore constructively unfairly dismissed.

The ET also found that her sickness was genuine, so her claim for unlawful deduction from wages in relation to sick pay also succeeded.

This case reminds employers not to make snap judgments about employees’ workload and work ethic, solely because the employee may have flexible working arrangements in place. If an employer has concerns about an employee’s performance they should first have a discussion with the employee. If the employer still has concerns, they should implement a performance improvement plan, and not act in a way that is calculated to push the employee out.