A worker who felt forced to resign after a company director said her great-grandson needed ‘a good slap’ has been awarded more than £24,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
An employment tribunal in Leicester found that Mrs Lee-Shields, who was a foster carer for her great-grandson, left jewellery display equipment company Exquisite Displays in March 2022 after nearly 20 years of employment, following a heated exchange with director Mr Bennet.
In March 2021 Lee-Shields stepped in to become a carer for X, her four-year-old great-grandson who was placed with her by social services.
Unfair dismissal
Woman who worked unpaid for 20 years was unfairly dismissed
Tube driver who opened wrong doors wins unfair dismissal claim
She told the tribunal she was under a lot of emotional distress, juggling her work, caring for X and criminal proceedings involving a family member.
The organisation was initially supportive of her situation and put in place several adjustments including allowing her to come into work later and leave earlier to carry out the school run for X. She was also allowed to use a private office for remote meetings with social services and she was able to take some of her work home with her.
In January 2022, X began displaying extreme emotional outbursts at school, resulting in violence towards teachers and pupils. The claimant informed the directors who spoke about flexibility in her working hours in case she needed to pick him up from school.
The frequency and intensity of the claimant’s care responsibilities increased substantially in the first few months of 2022, which affected her work. There were regular calls from school and social services, which would take her away from work temporarily or lead to lateness or the need to leave early.
The directors became increasingly frustrated with the situation, as they were falling behind with orders and had to adjust the business’s output.
Carvey at one point suggested that “she should give X a good slap” or that “X was just a naughty child”. In one
conversation between the claimant and Carvey, Lee-Shields shared how she had had a difficult day the previous day and the reply was “to slap him”. Similarly, Bennet said she should “give him a good slap”, and that “it never did any harm to my kids”.
The last straw came on 10 March 2022, when Lee-Shields arrived at work late. Bennet was frustrated because they were already behind with an order and he snapped at the claimant, telling her to “stop chatting and concentrate on your work”.
Around lunchtime, the claimant received a telephone call from the school to inform her that X was being excluded and he needed to be collected. A few days earlier, Lee-Shields’ son had been approved to collect X from school, so the claimant went to the locker area to phone him to ask him to collect.
Lee-Shields returned to her work area and told Bennet that the school had called and said X needed to be collected. This triggered more frustration from Bennet who responded “where’s his f**king dad in all this?”. Lee-Shields said she was not given a chance to explain that her son would be collecting X from school.
Lee-Shields was upset by Bennet’s response and shouted back “I don’t know why you keep going on about his dad” and went outside to compose herself. When she returned inside it appeared Bennet presumed she was about to leave to collect X and he was claimed to have said “just give him a good slap”, at which point emotion overtook the claimant and she shouted back at him “don’t you think he’s been through enough?”.
Bennet allegedly commented that he had been “lenient” with Lee-Shields, to which she responded “you obviously don’t want me here”. She left the premises and later resigned.
The tribunal heard that the directors felt Lee-Shields had been dishonest with them about her care plans, which led to their frustration, but the judge found that the directors had instead made assumptions about the situation.
The judge found that “aggressive” criticism of the claimant and her family, as well as the directors’ frustration with her care commitments, damaged the trust and confidence she had in her employer. This meant her resignation amounted to unfair dismissal.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Lee-Shields was awarded £24,725.35 in compensation.
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
