Can we stop employees from having direct contact?

steampowered

undercoverirish wrote: »

I regret it already. She is screaming discrimination now so this has turned into something bigger than we expected. We just wanted her to stop messaging her colleagues directly.

It is very difficult to see how she would be able to bring a legal claim simply because you told her not to contact other employees.

Generally, people who start shouting 'discrimination' at the drop of the hat have no idea what they are talking about, and are unlikely to have the attention to detail required to actually bring and follow through with a legal claim.

The legal angle would only really come into play if you decided to dismiss her in circumstances where she has unfair dismissal rights.

I do think you should reply to her - in a written format (e.g. email) - confirming your instruction. You should also clearly explain the reason for the instruction (i.e. inappropriate messages) so that it is clear the reason was not discriminatory.

If this person has less than 2 years' service (including their notice period), it may be wise to dismiss them now. So that you can get rid of her before she gets unfair dismissal rights.

marliepanda

undercoverirish wrote: »

She!!!8217;s the only woman - we aren!!!8217;t a sexist organisation, it!!!8217;s just a very male dominated industry!

She won't get anywhere. You havent told her not to because shes a woman, youve told her not to because its annoying.

It may be an idea to issue these rules to ALL staff, but also to simply tell them to block unwanted communication.

Then id get shot of her as she sounds like a nightmare!

Comms69

undercoverirish wrote: »

They don!!!8217;t hate her, they just wanted to stop the direct communication. Their wives probably aren!!!8217;t keen on them getting messages from a woman at work and I can appreciate how that might look.

In hindsight it seems stupid that we would try and say she can only have direct contact with them if they invite her to. It!!!8217;s worded all wrong. !!!8220;Don!!!8217;t you call me, I!!!8217;ll call you!!!8221;. We were trying to make things easier on everyone

And the discrimination claim just got a bit more weight (called it by the way!)

BorisThomson

undercoverirish wrote: »

They don!!!8217;t hate her, they just wanted to stop the direct communication. Their wives probably aren!!!8217;t keen on them getting messages from a woman at work and I can appreciate how that might look.

In hindsight it seems stupid that we would try and say she can only have direct contact with them if they invite her to. It!!!8217;s worded all wrong. !!!8220;Don!!!8217;t you call me, I!!!8217;ll call you!!!8221;. We were trying to make things easier on everyone

So she is not to contact them because she is a woman?

Comms69

marliepanda wrote: »

She won't get anywhere. You havent told her not to because shes a woman, youve told her not to because its annoying.

It may be an idea to issue these rules to ALL staff, but also to simply tell them to block unwanted communication.

Then id get shot of her as she sounds like a nightmare!

Actually it seems like he has.... which is a pretty big error!

bugslet

marliepanda wrote: »

How can it be constructive dismissal? Everyone is allowed to talk to everyone. Its basically saying 'you can post on the forum so everyone can see, but you cannot go outside of this and PM/call bugslet. if you want to talk to bugslet, you need to contact him on the forum'

No one is stopping anyone from talking to anyone, but they have to do it in the proper place.

Maybe I read it wrong marlie, with the lack of exact detail, but I read it as being work related in work time on work computer networks. And just the one person, not everyone. If that was the case, stopping someone from discussing anything with other work colleagues without trying to solve the problem seems a bit heavy handed. The amount of times I've seen people on this board, try for all sorts of monetary recompense for the strangest of things - well you've been here as much as me. I did say that it depends on what has actually happened, and at the time of posting, it wasn't that clear.

i see it'smoved on somewhat!

marliepanda

BorisThomson wrote: »

So she is not to contact them because she is a woman?

I think you're massively reading into this.

The STAFF may be asking for a discriminatory reason, but the manager is not. he is asking because it is annoying his staff.

really they need to block her though.

undercoverirish

I!!!8217;ve dug a hole it seems. And it was not the intention at all. As I say, we would never discriminate as we just are not that way inclined.

steampowered

BorisThomson wrote: »

And make a claim for victimisation.

We don't know if she has a valid case or not, we don't know what she has said/ sent that has caused such offence, but it is clear that she has the upper hand because the employer has failed to manage the situation properly.

Failing to manage a situation properly is not illegal. Employment law is pretty restricted. Employers are generally allowed to manage situations properly, or not. It only becomes an issue if the employer does something that is actually unlawful (such as unfair dismissal or discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010).

In English law, the word 'victimisation' applies when someone is treated badly because they complained about discrimination.

In this case, the restriction was imposed before the complaint of discrimination - so it can't be victimisation.

Unless the employee could prove that she was discriminated against due to her gender, it wouldn't be victimisation either.

Comms69

marliepanda wrote: »

I think you're massively reading into this.

The STAFF may be asking for a discriminatory reason, but the manager is not. he is asking because it is annoying his staff.

really they need to block her though.

It depends on what was said - I can certainly see this:


"Some of the lads have told me their wives aren't happy that a woman is messaging them, so you aren't allowed to anymore" (- but the men can) - it certainly starts to look bad!