In the case of Mr Christopher Williams v Stow Brothers Chris Williams was described as a ‘conscientious and diligent employee’ who eventually ended up heading Stow Brothers’ property management department.
But after four ‘relatively happy years’ at the east London agency, everything changed between Mr Williams and his employers, a tribunal found.
In May 2019, a tenant was allowed to move into a property without the necessary paperwork and did not pay rent, forcing the company to compensate the landlord.
Company director Andrew Goad asked Mr Williams to ‘create’ the missing paperwork required to make an insurance claim covering the cost of this compensation, but he refused, the panel heard.
Over the next 12 months, Mr Goad sought to ‘make life difficult for Mr Williams, criticising him in front of others and portraying him as incompetent.’
During this period, Mr Williams was the only employee not given a pay rise and he claimed his bosses deliberately did not invite him to an awards ceremony.
When Mr Williams signed off sick from work with stress in February 2020, his departure was nothing ‘other than welcome’ to his boss, the tribunal found.
He was then placed on furlough, during the first lockdown, and was the only employee who remained under the scheme by the end of the year.
In an email sent during this period, Mr Goad wrote ‘this employee’s time is up’ and that he was looking to ‘move forward’ without him.
He also wrote: ‘We always knew it would be tricky to pin him (Mr Williams) down on something.
‘Let’s hope the fear that he might have to return to the office and face up to his colleagues is enough for him to buckle.’
At the end of 2020, Mr Williams was subjected to disciplinary hearings, after being accused of deleting emails from his computer.
The panel found this was a ‘false trail’ designed to create a pretence for dismissal and described a disciplinary hearing as an ‘ambush’.
Mr Williams was awarded a total of £30, 891 in compensation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
