The seven-year legal saga involving school assistant Kristie Higgs has reached its definitive conclusion, with the Supreme Court rejecting Farmor’s School’s attempt to appeal a landmark judgment. This ruling carries significant implications for employers across the UK, particularly concerning employee free speech, religious beliefs, and social media conduct.

Kristie Higgs’ Victory: A Deep Dive into the Case

Kristie Higgs, a Christian school assistant, was dismissed by Farmor’s School after sharing posts on Facebook that her employer deemed transphobic and homophobic. The initial 2020 Employment Tribunal ruling sided with the school, but this decision was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023, which remitted the case for a rehearing.

However, the tide truly turned in February 2025 when the Court of Appeal ruled in Higgs’ favour. This crucial judgment affirmed that the Equality Act protects traditional Christian beliefs on social issues, including views on transgenderism, ‘gender-fluidity,’ and same-sex marriage. More profoundly, it established a legal presumption: any dismissal stemming from an expression or manifestation of Christian faith is now considered unlawful. The onus, the Court of Appeal clarified, rests firmly on the employer to objectively justify such a dismissal.

Despite the school’s appeal in March, the Supreme Court, through Judges Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler, refused to hear the case, effectively bringing this protracted legal battle to a close. Higgs has expressed immense relief, asserting that the decision safeguards the right of Christians to articulate their beliefs on social media and in non-work-related settings without fear of professional repercussions. Christian organisations supporting Higgs have hailed the verdict as a monumental victory for both free speech and religious freedom within the workplace.

Navigating Freedom of Belief in the Workplace

This Supreme Court decision sets a significant precedent, reshaping the landscape of employment law, especially in areas touching on an employee’s personal beliefs and their expression. To ensure legal compliance and avoid costly disputes, employers must understand the critical lessons from the Kristie Higgs case.

Understanding Protected Beliefs and the Equality Act

Employers must recognise that traditional Christian beliefs, even those concerning sensitive social issues like gender identity and marriage, are protected under the Equality Act 2010. This means employers cannot simply dismiss or discipline an employee for holding or expressing these views. The focus must shift from the belief itself to the conduct and its demonstrable impact.

The Shift in Burden of Proof: Justifying Dismissals

Perhaps the most impactful aspect of this ruling is the reversal of the burden of proof. If an employer dismisses an employee for expressing their Christian faith (or any other protected belief), the employer now bears the heavy responsibility of objectively justifying that dismissal to an employment tribunal. It is no longer enough to claim a belief that the dismissal was warranted or to cite vague concerns about reputational damage. The justification must be concrete, evidence-based, and proportionate to the alleged transgression.

Reassessing Reputational Damage in Disciplinary Actions

While an employer’s reputation remains important, the Higgs case signals that theoretical fears of reputational damage or subjective concerns about causing offence will likely no longer suffice as a sole basis for disciplinary action or dismissal related to off-duty expressions of belief. There must be a clear, tangible, and severe impact on the organisation’s operations, its public image, or its relationships that demonstrably outweighs the employee’s fundamental right to freedom of expression and religion.

Revisiting and Strengthening Social Media Policies

Given the prevalence of social media, employers are strongly advised to urgently review and update their social media policies. These policies must be meticulously drafted to be clear, proportionate, and not overly broad. The aim should be to regulate conduct that genuinely harms the business, rather than inadvertently stifling legitimate expressions of personal belief outside of working hours or in non-work-related contexts. Policies should also distinctly differentiate between personal opinions shared on private accounts and official communications that represent the employer.

Essential Training for HR and Management Teams

Comprehensive training for HR professionals and line managers is now more critical than ever, as an employer or HR Manager, you need to fully grasp the nuances of this judgment and its implications for managing situations where an employee’s personal beliefs, expressed outside of work, might be perceived as controversial. The emphasis should be on conducting thorough, fair, and impartial investigations that meticulously consider all relevant factors, crucially including the employee’s rights under the Equality Act. Avoiding knee-jerk reactions is paramount.

The Kristie Higgs judgment serves as a powerful reminder that employers must exercise extreme caution when considering disciplinary action against employees for expressions of their protected beliefs, especially when those expressions occur outside of the workplace and do not directly or demonstrably harm the employer’s business. The legal bar for justifying such dismissals has been significantly raised, unequivocally reinforcing the importance of freedom of speech and religion within English law.

How can we help?

Navigating the complex landscape of employment law, particularly in the wake of the Kristie Higgs Supreme Court ruling, can present significant challenges for employers. To ensure your HR and employment practices remain legally compliant and robust against future claims, expert guidance is invaluable. Don’t hesitate to contact Supportis on 0161 603 2156, or at [email protected].

Summary of the High-Profile Tribunal Case

Abbie Garner, a commis chef at Thorpe Hall Leisure, a distinguished four-star hotel, was awarded £13,000 for disability discrimination after being dismissed following a public outburst of swearing. In August 2023, Garner was widely overheard by numerous staff and guests shouting expletives at a colleague, Dylan Bolt, with whom she had previously been in a relationship. The argument itself stemmed from Bolt having reportedly slept with one of Garner’s friends, and the volatile exchange occurred within a public corridor frequently used by hotel guests, linking the spa reception and sunbathing area.

The company’s disciplinary policy explicitly listed aggressive behaviour and excessive bad language as examples of gross misconduct, also stipulating that employees were expected to act courteously in front of customers and colleagues. Although Garner’s behaviour had been rated as good in an earlier appraisal in February 2023, it was concurrently noted that her mood could occasionally dip and she sometimes struggled with accepting criticism. Crucially, Garner had previously informed her employer about her ongoing struggles with poor mental health, specifically anxiety and depression, and had recently returned from a period of sick leave in June and July 2023 for these very issues, confirming she was taking medication to support her mental health.

Following multiple guest complaints about the outburst, Thorpe Hall Leisure engaged its HR consultants to conduct an investigation, who advised that the incident could indeed amount to gross misconduct. At the subsequent disciplinary hearing, Garner was perceived by the tribunal as downplaying the incident and refusing to acknowledge its significant impact. She was consequently dismissed from her employment, and her subsequent appeal was ultimately unsuccessful as she failed both to provide specific grounds for it and to attend the scheduled appeal hearing in September.

However, the East London Employment Tribunal ultimately found that while Thorpe Hall was justified in dismissing her to protect its legitimate aims of preserving its reputation and maintaining professional standards, it had crucially failed to make reasonable adjustments for Garner’s anxiety, which was determined to be a disability. The tribunal concluded that her inability to control her anger and attitude during the disciplinary meeting was a direct consequence of her disability. Furthermore, the tribunal highlighted the company’s failure to obtain a comprehensive medical report on Garner’s condition as a specific act amounting to discrimination based on disability. Consequently, she was awarded £13,500, with £11,000 of this sum specifically allocated to reflect the injury to her feelings.

Employer Essentials: Managing Staff with Disabilities in the Workplace

This particular case highlights the critical importance for employers to fully understand and meticulously fulfil their legal obligations, particularly concerning disability and mental health within the workplace. Employers must firmly recognise that:

Mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression, especially if they are long-term and significantly impact an individual’s daily activities, are highly likely to be considered disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. This legal classification automatically triggers an employer’s duty to consider and implement reasonable adjustments.

An employee’s behaviour, even if it appears to constitute gross misconduct, may in fact be a direct manifestation or a consequence of their disability. Therefore, employers cannot simply proceed with dismissal without thoroughly exploring this crucial link.

Furthermore, employers have a proactive duty to actively consider and implement reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, which might involve adjusting standard disciplinary processes, offering different forms of support tailored to their condition, or even mandating the acquisition of professional medical advice before making final decisions.

The reliance solely on an employee’s self-reporting or making assumptions about their health is insufficient; employers should, with the employee’s explicit consent, seek professional medical reports, perhaps from an occupational health specialist or their General Practitioner, to thoroughly understand the nature of the condition, its specific impact on the employee’s ability to perform their job, and to identify potential reasonable adjustments.

Failing to take this crucial step can unequivocally be deemed discriminatory. While employers undoubtedly possess the right to uphold professional standards and protect their business reputation, this right must be carefully balanced against their unwavering obligations under disability discrimination law. Dismissal may still be justified for gross misconduct, but only if all reasonable adjustments have been genuinely explored and the ultimate decision is demonstrably non-discriminatory.

It is also important to consider that an employee’s behaviour during a disciplinary hearing itself can be profoundly influenced by their disability; employers therefore need to be acutely mindful of this and ensure the entire process is fair, accessible, and potentially includes adjustments to the meeting format or provides additional support beyond a colleague or union representative if required due to their specific condition.

HR and Employment Law Tips: Ensuring Compliance and Support

To effectively mitigate legal risks and ensure continuous compliance when managing staff, particularly in situations potentially involving disability, employers should implement the following HR and Employment Law tips:

It is imperative to develop robust and easily accessible policies for disciplinary actions, grievances, and equal opportunities, ensuring they are clear, comprehensive, and readily available to all staff. Crucially, these policies should explicitly reference the employer’s unwavering commitment to supporting employees with disabilities and their responsibility for making reasonable adjustments.

Additionally, investing in comprehensive training for line managers and HR personnel is essential, equipping them with the knowledge to accurately recognise the signs of mental health issues, understand their fundamental duty of care, and know precisely when and how to seek specialist advice, such as through occupational health referrals. This training should encompass sensitive communication techniques and a thorough understanding of the reasonable adjustments duty.

Employers should also foster an open and supportive culture where employees feel genuinely comfortable disclosing health issues; when an employee indicates a health problem, especially concerning mental health, a supportive dialogue should be initiated to understand its precise impact on their work and to proactively explore potential adjustments.

Furthermore, if there are any concerns that an employee’s behaviour or performance may be linked to a health condition, it is paramount to always seek objective medical advice with the employee’s consent; this report should meticulously clarify the diagnosis, its specific impact on the employee’s ability to perform their job, and recommend suitable reasonable adjustments, as this step is absolutely critical for informed decision-making and for defending against potential discrimination claims.

Meticulous documentation of all communications, meetings, medical reports requested or received, adjustments considered and implemented (or the justified reasons for not implementing them), and all disciplinary proceedings is also essential, as good record-keeping provides vital evidence should a claim arise.

During a disciplinary process involving an employee with a known or suspected disability, it is crucial to consider implementing reasonable adjustments; this could involve allowing more time for proceedings, providing information in different formats, or allowing a support person to be present beyond a colleague or union representative if required due to their condition.

Employers must also vigilantly avoid making assumptions; do not assume an employee is being difficult or uncooperative if their behaviour changes without first considering if it could be a direct manifestation of an underlying health condition. Finally, for any complex or high-risk cases involving potential disability discrimination, it is always advisable to seek early and expert advice from an employment law specialist; this proactive step can significantly help in navigating the intricate nuances of such situations and ensure that all legal obligations are diligently met.

By proactively managing mental health and disability in the workplace with both empathy and strict adherence to legal duties, employers can effectively avoid costly tribunal claims and cultivate a more inclusive, supportive, and ultimately, more productive working environment.

How can Supportis help your business?

Navigating the intricate landscape of employment law, particularly when managing sensitive cases involving disability discrimination and employee conduct like the recent “swearing chef” ruling, can present significant challenges for employers. To ensure your HR and employment practices remain legally compliant and robust against potential claims, expert guidance is invaluable. Don’t hesitate to contact Supportis on 0161 603 2156, or at [email protected].

A new survey paints a concerning picture: one in three UK employees (34%) admit to either engaging in or witnessing substance use or other addictive behaviours during work hours. This stark statistic, revealed by a Bupa poll of 1,503 employees and 1,500 employers, highlights a significant and growing challenge for businesses across the country. More than half of all employees surveyed (57%) confessed to struggling with some form of substance abuse or addiction, ranging from common issues like alcohol (15%) and gambling (14%) to recreational drugs (7%), social media, prescription medication, and even cryptocurrency trading.

These findings are not isolated; they align with national addiction treatment figures, which have reported a substantial surge in individuals seeking support. Between April 2023 and March 2024, over 310,000 adults engaged with drug and alcohol treatment services – a 7% increase on the previous year and the highest number since 2009.

The Pressures Behind the Problem: Why Addiction is Rising in the Workplace

The Bupa survey sheds light on the triggers behind this concerning trend. Almost half of employees (48%) cited turning to addictive behaviours as a coping mechanism for professional stress. Work-related pressure was a contributing factor for 46%, and for a significant two in five (40%), the very workplace culture itself played a role in fuelling these behaviours. This suggests a systemic issue, where the demands and environment of work can inadvertently contribute to employees developing or exacerbating addictive habits.

Employers are noticing the impact too. Nearly half (49%) reported an increase in addiction-related issues among their workforce in the past year alone. This translates into tangible business consequences: 44% of employers observed performance issues, and 33% recorded a higher level of absenteeism. Similar to employees, business leaders frequently attributed these issues to mental health challenges (42%) and personal difficulties (42%).

Breaking the Silence: Tackling Stigma and Fostering Support

Despite the undeniable prevalence of addiction, a significant barrier to support remains: stigma. A staggering 45% of employees would rather conceal an addiction than discuss it at work. Furthermore, 43% admitted to avoiding professional help altogether due to a fear of workplace repercussions, and more than half (51%) believed stigma actively prevents colleagues from seeking the assistance they need.

Dr Robin Clark, Medical Director at Bupa UK Insurance, underscores this point: “It’s clear that addiction is a taboo topic in the workplace, this is often due to the stigma, lack of understanding and the fear of repercussions at work.” He highlights the stark reality of the issue, noting that Bupa has processed over 26,000 claims related to different addictions in the last five years alone.

Dr Clark’s message to employers is clear: “While businesses acknowledge the growing scale of the issue, it’s important they create a culture where people can feel supported and comfortable opening up about what they’re going through and have access to confidential services to help them get treatment when they need it. If they don’t, they run the risk of not being able to retain valuable talent.”

Employment Law and HR: A Framework for Responsible Employer Action

For UK employers, addressing substance addiction in the workplace requires a delicate balance of support and compliance with employment law.

Understanding Your Duty of Care and Legal Obligations

Employers have a duty of care to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. This extends to addressing issues like substance abuse that can impact an employee’s wellbeing and their ability to perform their job safely. The Equality Act 2010 is also highly relevant, as addiction, particularly if it is a long-term condition with a substantial adverse effect on daily activities, could be considered a disability. This means employees suffering from addiction may be protected from discrimination, and employers may have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to support them.

Developing a Clear Workplace Substance Abuse Policy

A robust and clearly communicated workplace substance abuse policy is fundamental. This policy should meticulously outline clear statements on prohibited substance use during work hours or on company premises, detail the disciplinary process for breaches of the policy, and provide full information on available support services, such as Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), counselling, or occupational health referrals. It must also offer assurance that personal information will be handled confidentially and, if drug and alcohol testing is to be implemented, the policy must clearly state the circumstances under which it will occur (for example, for safety-critical roles, ‘for cause’ testing, or random testing), while adhering strictly to legal and ethical guidelines.

Offering Support, Not Just Sanctions

The survey findings strongly suggest that punitive approaches alone are insufficient. Employers should prioritise creating a supportive environment where employees feel safe to come forward. This can include providing access to Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), which offer confidential counselling and support services for a range of personal issues including addiction. Utilising occupational health professionals is also crucial for assessing an employee’s fitness for work, recommending adjustments, and guiding treatment pathways. Where appropriate and safe, considering flexible working arrangements, such as temporary adjustments to working hours or duties, can accommodate treatment or recovery. Furthermore, training for managers is essential, equipping them with the skills to recognise the signs of addiction, approach the conversation sensitively, and signpost employees to appropriate support without breaching confidentiality.

Navigating Performance Management and Disciplinary Procedures

While support is crucial, employers also have a right to manage performance. If substance abuse impacts an employee’s work, the situation should be handled through standard performance management or disciplinary procedures, but with careful consideration of the underlying addiction. It is vital to ensure any disciplinary action follows a fair and transparent process, allowing the employee to present their case and be accompanied. Employers must investigate thoroughly, distinguishing between a one-off incident and an ongoing addiction, and investigating the root cause of performance issues. Before dismissing an employee, especially if addiction is a factor, employers should consider all reasonable alternatives to dismissal, such as a formal warning, a structured support plan, or a ‘last chance agreement’ linked to engagement with treatment, as unfair dismissal claims are a real risk if due process is not followed and genuine support is not considered.

Maintaining Confidentiality and Data Protection

Strict adherence to GDPR and data protection principles is essential when handling sensitive information about an employee’s health or addiction. Information should only be shared on a ‘need-to-know’ basis and with the employee’s explicit consent where required.

In conclusion, the rise of addiction in the workplace is a silent epidemic that demands proactive and empathetic responses from UK employers. By fostering a culture of support, implementing clear and legally compliant policies, and prioritising employee well-being, businesses can not only mitigate performance and attendance issues but also retain valuable talent and contribute to a healthier, more productive workforce. Ignoring this challenge is no longer an option.

How can we help?

Navigating the complex landscape of employment law, particularly concerning the rising challenge of workplace addiction and the legal nuances it presents, can be daunting for employers. To ensure your HR and employment practices remain legally compliant and your workforce receives the appropriate support, expert guidance is invaluable. Don’t hesitate to contact Supportis on 0161 603 2156, or at [email protected].

Navigating the New Immigration Landscape: Employer FAQs

The UK government has recently unveiled its Immigration White Paper, signaling a significant shift in immigration policy with an aim to reduce reliance on overseas workers and bolster investment in homegrown talent. While some proposals require new legislation and a broader change in approach, the implications for UK employers are already becoming clear. Here, we break down the key changes and outline what employers need to understand about their current and future obligations.

The Current Landscape: Employer Obligations

Currently, UK employers sponsoring overseas workers operate under a set of established rules, including:

Sponsorship Licence – Businesses must hold a valid sponsorship licence to hire eligible foreign nationals.

Skilled Worker Route – This route allows employers to sponsor individuals in eligible occupations that meet a specific skill level (currently RQF Level 3 or above in many cases) and salary threshold.

Immigration Skills Charge – Employers pay a charge when sponsoring skilled workers.

Immigration Salary List – This list identifies specific occupations where employers can recruit overseas workers at a lower salary threshold.

Time to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) – Typically, sponsored skilled workers can apply for ILR (the precursor to citizenship) after five years of continuous lawful residence.

Care Worker Visa Route – Employers in the care sector can sponsor overseas workers for specific care roles.

Graduate Visa – Graduates of UK universities can typically stay and work in the UK for two years after completing their studies.

The Future: Forthcoming Changes and Employer Obligations

The Immigration White Paper outlines several key changes that will impact employer obligations. While specific implementation dates for legislative changes are yet to be confirmed, employers need to be aware of the direction of travel and potential timelines.

Immediate to Near-Term Impacts

Increased Immigration Skills Charge

This increase of 32% (the first rise since 2017) will likely come into effect relatively soon after the necessary legislative or regulatory changes are implemented. Employers should factor this increased cost into their hiring budgets for sponsored workers.

Focus on Training Local Hires

The expectation for employers to demonstrate a commitment to training local workers is immediate. While the specifics of measurement are unclear, employers should begin to review and enhance their internal training programs and recruitment strategies targeting the domestic workforce.

Changes with a Potential Mid-Term Horizon (Likely requiring new legislation)

Closure of the Care Worker Visa Route

New applications for this route will cease. However, a transition period until 2028 will allow visa extensions and in-country switching for those already in the UK with the right to work. Employers in the care sector face a significant challenge in planning for recruitment beyond this period.

Higher Skilled Worker Visa Requirements

The skill threshold will rise to RQF Level 6 (bachelor’s degree equivalent). Once implemented, employers will need to ensure that sponsored roles meet this higher qualification level. This will particularly affect sectors that currently recruit for roles below this level, such as hospitality, unless those roles are deemed to be in ‘shortage occupations’.

Abolition of the Immigration Salary List

When this change takes effect, employers will no longer be able to rely on lower salary thresholds for specific occupations. All sponsored roles will need to meet the standard Skilled Worker salary requirements, which are also expected to increase (though the new levels are yet to be announced).

‘Time-Limited’ Shortage Occupation Recruitment

For specific occupations facing long-term shortages where visa requirements are below degree level, employers may have temporary access through the points-based system, provided they have a workforce strategy and a commitment to increasing domestic recruitment. The duration and specific conditions of this provision are yet to be detailed.

Reduced Graduate Visa Duration

The length of the Graduate visa will be reduced to 18 months (from the current two years). This will impact employers who rely on recruiting recent international graduates. The implementation timeline for this change is still to be confirmed.

Increased English Language Requirements

Skilled workers will need to demonstrate English language skills at B2 level (level of proficiency on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and adult dependants will need to show a basic level. There may also be requirements to demonstrate progress in language skills during their stay. Employers should be aware that this could impact the pool of eligible candidates.

Doubled Timeframe for Citizenship

New arrivals will need to wait 10 years before being eligible for indefinite leave to remain, significantly extending the period of sponsorship and associated costs for employers intending to retain overseas staff long-term. Exceptions for highly skilled individuals may apply.

Longer-Term Considerations

Potential University Levy

The government is considering a levy on universities’ income from international students, which could indirectly impact the availability and cost of international graduates in the future.

Labour Market Evidence Group

The establishment of this group suggests a more data-driven and potentially more restrictive approach to identifying genuine skills shortages and the feasibility of filling them domestically.

What Employers Need to Do Now

Stay Informed – Keep abreast of further announcements and the specific timelines for the implementation of these changes.

Review Recruitment Strategies – Evaluate your current reliance on overseas workers and begin to explore strategies for attracting and retaining domestic talent.

Assess Training Needs – Identify skills gaps within your existing workforce and invest in training programmes to upskill local employees.

Budget Accordingly – Factor in the increased Immigration Skills Charge and the potential for higher salary thresholds and longer sponsorship periods when planning future hires.

Engage with Industry Bodies – Collaborate with your sector’s representative organisations to understand the broader implications and potential collective responses to these changes.

The UK’s immigration landscape is undergoing a significant transformation. By understanding the current obligations and proactively preparing for the forthcoming changes, UK employers can navigate these new rules effectively and ensure the continued success of their businesses.

Navigating these upcoming immigration changes can present complex challenges for employers. For expert guidance on ensuring your recruitment and employment practices remain legally compliant, please don’t hesitate to contact Supportis on 0161 603 2156, or at [email protected]. We can help you understand your obligations and plan effectively for the future immigration landscape.

The recent news regarding Police Scotland, where a record number of recruits were rejected due to inappropriate tattoos, serves as a stark reminder for UK employers: body art can be a complex HR and Health & Safety issue. With increasing societal acceptance of tattoos, how do you balance individual expression with your company’s image and legal obligations?

The Police Scotland Case: A Cautionary Tale

The details of the rejected tattoos – depicting graphic violence, sexual themes, and offensive imagery – highlight the potential for body art to cause offence and raise concerns about an employee’s professional conduct. While Police Scotland has a specific policy, this situation raises broader questions for all UK employers.

Key Considerations for UK Employers

Discrimination and Equality Act 2010

Instead of implementing a blanket ban on tattoos, which could potentially be discriminatory if it disproportionately affects certain groups, employers should focus on the specific nature of the tattoo and its potential impact on the business. Furthermore, it is imperative that any policy regarding tattoos is applied consistently and fairly across the workforce.

Company Image and Reputation

When determining your stance on employee tattoos, consider the nature of your business and the potential impact of visible tattoos on your brand image. In particular, for customer-facing roles, it may be necessary to implement specific guidelines regarding visible tattoos. Ultimately, a clear and well-communicated policy is crucial for ensuring consistency and managing employee expectations.

Health and Safety

Although less frequent, certain tattoos may present health and safety risks in specific work environments, such as those demanding stringent hygiene standards or where tattoos could impede the effective use of personal protective equipment. The postponement of Police Scotland’s beard ban, following consultation with health and safety experts, effectively demonstrates the critical importance of seeking professional advice before implementing any policy that could potentially impact employee wellbeing.

Employment Contracts and Policies

Clearly define your company’s stance on tattoos within your employment contracts and policies. Specifically, these documents should include comprehensive guidelines regarding acceptable and unacceptable tattoos, with particular attention paid to visible body art. Furthermore, it is imperative that your policies are legally sound and fully compliant with all current Employment Law.

Recruitment and Selection

Transparency regarding your company’s policy on tattoos is crucial during the recruitment process. Candidates may be asked about any visible tattoos and the potential impact these may have on their prospective role. In situations where the employee’s image is of paramount importance, such as in the case of Police, considering requesting photographs of tattoos is a valid approach.

Disciplinary Procedures

If an employee’s tattoo is considered inappropriate, follow your company’s disciplinary procedures. Explain your concerns clearly and consider solutions like covering the tattoo or changing the employee’s role.

Practical Advice for UK Employers

Create a fair, consistent, and legal written tattoo policy that employees are free to access at any time, and know of it’s existence and whereabouts. Treat each case  individually, based on the tattoo and its effect on the business.

If you’re facing uncertainties regarding the legal aspects of your tattoo policy, please don’t hesitate to contact Supportis on 0161 603 2156, or at [email protected]. We can provide expert guidance to ensure your actions as an employer remain legally compliant and help you manage the situation effectively.

What happened in the case of Hamilton v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust?

Mrs. Hamilton, a diabetes specialist nurse, successfully pursued a constructive dismissal claim against Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, receiving £41,000 in compensation, due to a sustained campaign of bullying and a failure of management to address it effectively.

The dispute originated from a professional disagreement between Mrs. Hamilton and a dietitian colleague, Mr. Nayeck, regarding patient care, which subsequently escalated into a pattern of deliberate exclusion and dismissive behavior by Mr. Nayeck. He actively ignored her, excluded her from routine team activities, and allegedly tampered with her personal belongings.

Despite a mediation attempt, Mr. Nayeck’s behaviour persisted, and he later made counter-allegations of bullying against Mrs. Hamilton, which were investigated, further exacerbating the situation.

Mrs. Hamilton’s formal grievance, citing the trust’s failure to address the ongoing issues and its tolerance of abusive behavior, was only partially upheld, leading to her eventual resignation due to stress and a complete breakdown of trust.

What can employers learn about this case?

This case underscores the critical responsibility of employers to proactively prevent and address bullying and harassment in the workplace.

Employers must establish clear policies and procedures for reporting and investigating such incidents, ensuring that all complaints are taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.

They must also provide adequate training to managers and employees on recognising and preventing bullying and harassment, and foster a workplace culture that promotes respect, open communication, and early intervention to resolve conflicts before they escalate.

Furthermore, employers should ensure that mediation or conflict resolution processes are conducted fairly and effectively, and that any outcomes are monitored to ensure lasting change.

The trust’s failure to effectively manage the interpersonal conflict and address the persistent bullying resulted in a significant financial penalty and demonstrated the importance of robust policies and procedures to protect employees from such harmful behaviours.

Further help and advice

Navigating workplace disputes involving bullying and harassment can be complex. If such a situation arises with your employees, please don’t hesitate to contact Supportis on 0161 603 2156, or at [email protected]. We can provide expert guidance to ensure your actions as an employer remain legally compliant and help you manage the situation effectively.