Having A NatteRR

In the latest episode of "Having a NatteRR", Simon and David discuss DB v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd, an unfair dismissal claim in which the Claimant was sacked for inadvertently exposing his private parts during a work Teams call. David talks us through the facts and Simon goes through the judgment. Also featuring: ☕ David's trip to Wrexham

In the latest episode of 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David explore the case of Rooke v NHS Blood and Transplant, in which the Claimant was awarded nearly £30,000 after being compared to Darth Vader at work.

In this week's Having a Natter, Simon and David tackle the case of Forrester-Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd, which involved a claim of discrimination arising from disability.  

In the latest episode of Robinson Ralph's ever unpopular podcast "Having a NatteRR", Simon and David take on the serious stuff and the shed stuff. This week's legal spotlight: Yousif v The Good Shepherd Trust, a case involving a claim of harassment related to race. As ever, Simon and David break it down and highlight the lessons for employers. And let us not forget the banter section (aka “Middle-aged Men Do Outdoorsy Things”) which in this episode covers:

This week, Simon and David bring you their usual mix of: ✅ High-quality employment law insight ✅ Low-quality banter The episode kicks off with a riveting* update on their personal lives—expect tales of minor inconveniences, questionable life choices, and the kind of detail no one asked for. (*Riveting status not guaranteed.) Then, onto the real reason you're here: employment law. We take a look at Selkin v Opico Ltd, where the tribunal found that procedural irregularities in the dismissal process fell outside the band of reasonable responses—a key reminder of how getting the process right matters just as much as the decision itself.

In the latest episode of Having a Natter, Simon and David dive into the case of Hamilton v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. The Claimant resigned in January 2022, citing “cruel bullying behaviours” and poor management. They discuss the key takeaways for employers and what this case means in practice. And in a double first, we've stepped up our tech game – recording with two new microphones and from two different locations. Isn't technology brilliant? (Well, most of the time…) Tune in to hear Simon and David's thoughts on the case, what it means for employers, and of course, their usual dose of wit and wisdom.

In this episode, Simon and Dave dive into the case of Higgs v Farmor's School, in which the claimant was dismissed from a secondary school after she shared Facebook posts criticising plans to teach about LGBT+ relationships in primary schools. They also (once again) explain the difference between acronyms and initialisms—because apparently, some people still don't know the difference. And if that wasn't enough, they somehow manage to crowbar in a few Steps song titles. Tragedy? Maybe. Worth a listen? Absolutely.

Join Simon and Dave in this first episode of the new series as they break down the case of Ashraf v NHS England, which included an allegation that shortly before the claimant was due to go on maternity leave, she was told that she was mad for having more children. They discuss the judgment, key takeaways for employers, and what this case means in practice. And because no 'Having a Natter' episode is complete without a few unexpected tangents, they also find time to talk about James Blunt and poultry rebellion.

In the latest episode of our 'Having a NatteRR' podcast, David and I discuss the case of Cooper v (1) Sainsbury's and (2) Hourihan. This case considered (amongst other things) a complaint under s.26 and s.15 EqA 2010 about the second Respondent failing to include the Claimant on an ‘International Men's Day' post sent to all internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn. We look at the facts, the judgment, and what employers can learn from this case.  In this episode's banter section, we just list the things we are doing over the next few days, which may or may not be of interest.   

We look at the case of Pilawa v Spericle Ltd T/a Properties on The Market, in which an employee who was rendered bedbound by endometriosis, was awarded more than £31k for unfair dismissal. We also talk about David's camping trip, which included playing a Swedish game called 'kubb' and the time I shouted at some youths. 

In the latest episode of  the non-award winning 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David examine the case of Taneja v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited, which included an allegation that the Claimant being called the incorrect name on four occasions was an act of harassment and/or direct race discrimination. They also discuss whose weekend plans are best, with camping vs sleeping in a house, along with a teaser for the next episode: a fascinating explanation of initialism vs acronym.  

In this episode, we discuss the case of Legge v the Environment Agency, in which the Claimant who had argued he had been sacked for not being a feminist, was ordered to pay £20k costs for bringing a vexatious claim.    We also discuss Dave's hurty knee, my hurty shoulder and fights between people over sitting and standing at events. 

In this episode, David and I discuss the case of  Wright Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham​, which included a claim of direct disability discrimination.  We also talk about our upcoming trip to Chorley and how I was inconvenienced by the amount of 'looking' I had to do at a recent visit to Harry Potter Studios. 

In this episode, Simon and David discuss the case of McLaren V Hiflow Property Services, a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Claimant won and received a £22k reward. They look at what respondent did wrong in terms of case preparation, talk through the judgment and look at the lessons all employers can learn from this. It also includes the ever-popular ‘banter bit' in which Dave discusses the unhygienic state of his son's flat in Edinburgh, and Simon reveals how to steal chocolate from your children.

In this week's episode of Having a NatteRR, David and Simon discuss the case of In Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd, in which the Claimant won his claim of unfair dismissal after being sacked for played two pranks, involving placing, firstly, a tarantula's shed exoskeleton, and, subsequently, a snakeskin in a colleague's pigeonhole. The  Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £22,571.22, representing his loss of earnings until 6 July 2023, plus £704.99 per week from 7 July 2023 until reinstatement. The boys discuss where the Respondent went wrong. In addition, the “banter section” hits a new low.

In the second episode of this series of Robinson Ralph's Having a Natter podcast, David and Simon discuss the case of Ms Lad v Lily Head Dental Practice. The Claimant in this case was removed from a work whatsapp group whilst on maternity leave and brought a claim for maternity leave discrimination. There were other aspects to the case, but that is the aspect they focus on; there are lessons to be learned for employers with employees absent on maternity leave, when it is necessary to put in place measures to ensure those employees are included in events and announcements. They also discuss the trauma Simon anticipates suffering as a result of David not being able to accompany him for the usual evening curry whilst they are away delivering training., and the business plan for the “bus tour of injustice”.

In this episode, the first of a new series of Robinson Ralph's Having a NatteRR podcast, Simon and David discuss the case of Muir v AstraZeneca, where the employee was dismissed in December 2020 for misconduct relating to bullying and harassment. The Tribunal criticised the employer for failing to have due regard to Mr Muir's mental health disability, which had impacted on his behaviour. The tribunal found that Mr Muir's line manager and other relevant managers were aware of his disability and they could have taken steps to support him, rather than dismiss him. They also discuss how few or many people probably listen to the podcast; the “banter” section of course being the best reason to listen to the podcast and tell everyone else about it!

This week, Simon and David discuss the case of P v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd. It's a truly awful case of sexual harassment and vicarious liability relating to a manager's behaviour both during and after a works organised party. David and Simon raise the importance of both reminding employees that they are still subject to codes of conduct at work dos and also the requirement to challenge bad behaviour immediately.      

This week Simon and David discuss the EAT case of Mr Darrell Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency. They focus on the Health and Safety detriment and dismissal aspect of the claim, which arose because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The question in the case was whether the Claimant reasonably believed there were circumstances that placed him in serious and imminent danger. The case also had to consider whether the Claimant could have raised concerns with a Health and Safety Representative / Committee, who were not based in the same office location as the Claimant. A belief that something is harmful to health is not the same as a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Subsequently, the EAT did not find that there was a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Simon and David convey a key message to employers of taking complaints seriously and dealing with an employee's concerns. They also invite you to write in with any jokes they should have used in this episode!    

This week Simon and David discuss the case of D Martin v Jet Maintenance Limited. They discuss the Claimant's summary dismissal ‘in the heat of the moment' during an altercation with a co-owner of the business. The facts of that altercation were disputed. The Claimant acknowledged swearing but denied acting in an aggressive manner. An internal Hearing was then carried out to hear the allegations into the Claimant's conduct during the altercation, which was adjourned following the Claimant raising a grievance. An HR Consultant was engaged to hear the case against the Claimant and made recommendations. David and Simon comment on the Disciplinary Officer's approach to those recommendations, which resulted in a finding of unfair dismissal. Listeners will also find out how many countries begin with an ‘O' and how long it takes Simon to answer a trivia question!  

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Maxwell v HBOS Plc. The Claimant had a long-term sickness absence and the Tribunal had to consider whether that was sufficient reason for dismissal. They discuss the Tribunal's considerations in respect of whether a fair process had been conducted. The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was in an entrenched position with a loss of faith in the Respondent and there was no realistic prospect of him returning within any reasonable time frame. The Claimant's claim for Unfair Dismissal was subsequently dismissed. Listeners will also find out about Simon and David's recent travels.  

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Dumigan v The Mount School Limited. All staff members were requested by email on a Saturday to attend a meeting on Monday. This was a day off for the Claimant and she was due to meet her family to discuss the care of her elderly mother suffering with cancer. Following the Claimant raising that she could not attend the meeting, she was told it was not optional. The Claimant reiterated that she could not attend, and she was told her resignation was accepted. The Claimant confirmed she had not resigned and was essentially told she was dismissed. Simon and David discuss how employers should deal with ambiguous resignations and the issues this employer faced at the Final Hearing. This included the process that followed this email exchange, failing to follow their internal policies and the predetermined outcome of dismissal. They reiterate the importance of our advice!  

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mr Bryce v Sentry Consulting Limited. The Claimant suffered with Asperger's Syndrome and Dyslexia. As a result of his condition the Claimant's timekeeping and ability to plan ahead were impacted. The Respondent decided not to offer more shifts to the Claimant following his lateness and performance on site, namely not monitoring the site, spending time while on shift using social media and not patrolling the site because of an alleged tripping hazard. Simon and David discuss the Claimant's successful claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Listeners will also find out their favourite Robin Hood film.

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ian Drury v Ministry of Defence. The Claimant succeeded with claims of Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal. The Claimant stated he had suspended himself and there were concerns for the Claimant's mental ill health. The Claimant was then dismissed for gross misconduct relating to his absence without leave, irrespective of these concerns. They also discuss the determination that a 25% reduction in compensation should apply under the Polkey principle and the importance of only treating an Occupational Health report as advice, as it cannot replace the responsibility for management to make appropriate internal decisions. There are also Ian Drury song references for our listeners!  

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs V Nimoni v London Borough of Croydon. They discuss the successful claims for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from a disability. The Claimant worked as a Travel Trainer. The Claimant later became unable to work in this role because of her disability. They discuss the Respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments by not adjusting its redeployment policy to allow the Claimant to move into a vacant role at her level, instead making the Claimant apply for the role. The Claimant's application was unsuccessful, and she was dismissed at a Capability Hearing on ill-health grounds. Simon and David comment on an employer's obligation and duty to treat disabled employees more favourably in certain circumstances. They will also provide you with some train station trivia.

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ms T Webb v London Underground Ltd, in which the Claimant alleged unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The Claimant's dismissal was because of posts on social media that the Respondent determined were offensive, inflammatory, and racially divisive following the death of George Floyd, in breach of their policies and guidance. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's determination of the Claimant's activity on social media. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was not the subject of racial discrimination. The claimant was, however, found to be (procedurally) unfairly dismissed. Simon and David discuss the flaws in the Respondent's process, namely that they failed to consider any mitigation, including the Claimant's 32 years of service and previously unblemished record. They go on to explain what this is likely to mean in terms of arguments based on contributory fault or a Polkey deduction at the separate Remedy Hearing, as well as the Human Rights arguments advanced and how they failed to succeed. They also discuss a variety of locations for where they may be recording our podcasts from!

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Ms K Miller. They discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment regarding the provision of inadequate toilet facilities for women. They discuss this in the context of the EAT finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in finding that this subjected the Claimant to direct sex discrimination. The case involved whether the treatment of women in accessing toilet facilities, notably involving a risk of seeing a man using the urinals, amounted to a detriment because of sex. Simon and David discuss how the issue amounted to a series of detriments. They further discuss the case giving rise to all women being in a less favourable position than all men, with sex being the reason. They discuss how this means the motivations of the Respondent did not need to be considered, and that whilst a difference in treatment is not necessarily less favourable treatment, that difference in treatment was clearly less favourable in this case.  They also discuss why you should never ask Simon about his dreams!  

This week in the first episode of a brand-new series, Simon and David discuss the case of Mr A Tunnicliff v Baytree Car Sales and others. They discuss the case and the findings of unfair and wrongful dismissal. They also discuss the fact that the Respondent's main witness was away on a cruise at the time of the Hearing, meaning that no live evidence was given on behalf of the Respondent, as well as  the Tribunal finding that there had been falsification of evidence. They consider this in the context of the Tribunal's comment that the Respondent's conduct was ‘reprehensible', the Claimant's request for an application for costs, and an award being made for the maximum uplift of 25% for a failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. They also discuss their recent travels and search for an Indian restaurant.  

  This week Simon and David talk about the case of X v Y & Z, in which a female executive who was bombarded with peach emojis by her boss and was eventually awarded £420,000 after successfully claiming sex-related harassment and victimisation. We will discuss the harassment suffered by the claimant, as well as the problems the Respondent caused itself by its approach to the grievance investigation. David and Simon also tell you why they can't tell you the name of the case; in short, they don't want to go to jail.

In this week's case Simon and David discuss the case of Mr D Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd. This week's case reiterates the importance of properly exploring reasonable adjustments and working with an employee collaboratively to reduce the impact of their absences. They also consider how a blanket approach to absence management and trigger points will rarely be reasonable. The Tribunal in this case upheld that the absence trigger points were a PCP which placed the employee at a substantial disadvantage, with the employer having no mechanism to account for disability or disability-related absence.

In this week's podcast Simon and David discuss the case of Mr D Finch v Clegg Gifford & Co Ltd and S Bellamy. The Claimant brought claims of direct discrimination and harassment on age and disability grounds, discrimination arising from a disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. Simon and David discuss the details of the claims, noting that not all claims succeeded. They also provide their views on dealing with difficult and sensitive topics, including working with the employee to resolve any concerns.   This week's case also serves as a reminder that some settlement discussions can become admissible in evidence.  

This week on the podcast Simon and David discuss the case of Miss M Doran v Pearl Holdings NW Limited.  They discuss the Claimant's intermittent chronic migraines amounting to a disability and the Tribunal's finding of a failure to make reasonable adjustments by her employer.  They discuss this in the context of the Claimant's employer refusing to let the Claimant leave her shift early due to her migraine, saying it was 'tough'. The Claimant was subsequently forced to sit in a stock room where she lost her balance and was left lying on the floor without medical assistance for 2 hours, despite there being surveillance in this room and so management being aware of this.  They further discuss following the Claimant being fit to return to work her being told by her employer that they could no longer guarantee her hours and she ought to step down due to her health issues, the impact it was having on her and the team and the health and safety concerns they had.  Simon and David further reflect on the importance of management training, including on managing sickness absence and equality and diversity in the workplace. 

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Regnante v Essex Cares Ltd. We discuss the judgment upholding the Claimant's Constructive (Unfair) Dismissal claim relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Claimant requesting to work from home due to her husband's clinically extremely vulnerable status. We discuss the Tribunal's assessment of the employer's decision not to allow the Claimant to continue working from home, despite the government guidance in place at the time. We also consider the contradicting options the Claimant was provided with by her employer, of taking 12 weeks unpaid leave or coming into work and staying in a hotel due to her concerns for her husband. We give our views on this conflicting approach and how it ultimately impacted the Tribunal's findings that the employer failed to act reasonably and was not justified in their stance. In a truly damning indictment of the quality of the podcasts, Imogen decided to sit this one out!

This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Miss Allen v Primark Stores Limited. We discuss the Claimant's successful appeal to the EAT and the decision that in claims for indirect discrimination, the comparison pool should be matched to the relevant provision, criterion, or practice (PCP). The case involved the Claimant making a flexible working request and having a requirement imposed on her to guarantee her availability to work the late shift on Thursdays each week. The Claimant argued that this put her, as a woman, at a substantial disadvantage given her childcare responsibilities, having made the flexible working request on maternity leave in advance of her return to work. The Claimant subsequently resigned, claiming constructive (unfair) dismissal and indirect sex discrimination. We discuss the implications of the EAT's finding, having now been remitted for re-hearing.  

This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Catriona Robinson v Mind Monmouthshire Ltd. The former employee of Mind, mental health charity, succeeded in her claims for automatic unfair dismissal (public interest disclosures), failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the need to address bullying and harassment in the workplace and the need for employers to have clear policies on acceptable workplace behaviour. We also highlight the need to provide up to date training to equip managers on how to properly deal with issues of this nature. We also discuss the reputational impacts of the high-profile litigation.  

In the latest episode of this series, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Cassidy v Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd. The case involved the dismissal of Miss Cassidy for eating a chocolate bar and giving some to a customer, caught on CCTV, with the chocolate bar believed to be the stock of Iceland. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the flaws of the investigation conducted into the suspected theft of stock, representing gross misconduct. We discuss the importance of clearly outlining the allegations to the employee under investigation and throughout the disciplinary process, enabling them to put forward their position in response to the allegations. We also discuss the importance of your internal policies, to ensure that the employer's rules are clearly communicated and understood by staff, noting that the employee in this case raised doubt over whether the items were stock, and that she believed they belonged to a colleague and that they would regularly eat each other's food. We also discuss what our favourite desserts are.

In the third episode of this series, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the rules on taking evidence from abroad via video conference in the Employment Tribunal.    We discuss the case of Agbabiaka, which is about the process for what you need to do if witnesses you intend to call will be out of the country, but are otherwise available and willing to give evidence virtually. We also discuss the relevance of the case in the context of Covid-19 disrupting travel plans and placing a particular emphasis on the need for evidence to be given virtually.  

In the second episode of our new series, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd.   We discuss the case, including how a situation will be assessed when a mandatory vaccination requirement has been adopted by an employer before the appropriate legislation has been introduced to mandate that. We also discuss the relevance of the case in the context of the recent changes in government policy on the compulsory vaccination mandate in the health and social care sector.   

This week, in the first episode of the series, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Ms D Fitzpatrick v The Scottish Ministers.  We discuss the issues in the case, including the Claimant's allegations that she was "restrained" by male colleagues in December 2010, as a lesson to "keep her mouth shut" after blowing the whistle about a toxic workplace culture.  The Respondent's case was that they had dismissed Fitzpatrick for gross misconduct, stating she had intentionally lied about the date of the incident and forged emails. We discuss the Tribunal's finding that the Claimant was fairly dismissed and the evidence presented to the Tribunal by a digital forensic expert, that the image was actually taken in August 2009. We also provide you with our key takeaway points for dealing with difficult workplace issues. 

This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Miss A Curtis v Milltek Sport Ltd in the final episode of this year's series. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the Claimant's public interest disclosure that the Managing Director of the company was fraudulently using a company credit card. This included that he was using funds to upgrade to business class on flights, pay for parts on his vehicle and buy gifts for his partner. We provide our insight on five key ways to investigate disclosures of this nature and what further claims can arise should you fail to do so.

This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Mr L Marana v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust. We discuss the issues in the case, including the Claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct due to his 'pattern of inappropriate and unwanted behaviour' towards a young healthcare assistant in his team. We focus on the Claimant's claims that the allegations he faced, such as his attempting to kiss the assistant on the lips numerous times, were a ‘cultural norm'. We each give the others' view on the Tribunal's findings that dismissed the Claimant's claims for race discrimination and found that his actions towards the woman went beyond 'friendly' Filipino customs.

This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Jasmine Stunell v Leo Bancroft Salon Ltd. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the Claimant's claims of age discrimination in respect of comments made to her when she was 16 years old, including ‘grow up' and ‘pull yourself together'. We each give the others' view on the Tribunal's findings that the remarks complained of are not intrinsically linked to age.  David also expresses his anger towards the automated voices for zoom and lifts. 

This week David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Mrs R Malone v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the findings of the Tribunal that there was a ‘sexist boys' club culture' within the armed response vehicle unit. We go on to discuss further findings that much of the witnesses' evidence for the Police, which included high ranking officers, was deemed not credible. The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim of sex discrimination but upheld her complaint of victimisation. We also discuss updates amongst the team, including the suspicious loft, and try our best to give each other's viewpoints on the case.

This week Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Moore v Phoenix Product Development Limited. We discuss the issues of the case, focusing on the Employee who was dismissed not having been afforded an appeal. The dismissal was found to be reasonable in all the circumstances and ultimately it was found that an appeal was not necessary on the facts. We discussed the importance of the facts of the case in the EAT arriving at this decision, including that this was a dismissal for some other substantial reason (SOSR). We discuss the potential for this case to have been decided differently, should the actual reason for dismissal have been found to be conduct related on its facts. We also discuss our team member Imogen moving into a new house... and a rather suspicious loft.

This week Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Lacatus v Barclays Execution Services Limited. The case had many issues, but we focus on the Tribunal's findings that the male line manager of the female Claimant, in referring to women as “birds”, subjected the Claimant to direct sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that “the use of the phrase ‘bird' was a misplaced use of irony which inadvertently caused offence”, thus demonstrating that it is the effect on the individual that is usually relevant in discrimination or harassment claims, rather than the intention of the perpetrator. We also explore the differences between Orville the Duck and Uri Geller. As you'd expect.

The podcast returns this week with a brand new series of 'Having a NatteRR'! This week for the first episode, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Mr David Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd. They discuss the case concerning whether the Claimant had a disability and the fundamental distinction between a Claimant having a disability and the Respondent (Employer) being aware of that disability, including where this has not been disclosed by the Employee at the outset of employment. 

Having A NatteRR returns with a brand new episode. This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Flatman v Essex County Council. In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an Employment Tribunal had erred by failing to identify whether a fundamental breach of contract by an employer had occurred before the point of an employee's resignation and reaffirmed that, once committed, a fundamental breach cannot be cured.

Robinson Ralph is back with a brand new episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.This week, David, Jane, and Imogen discuss the case of Aylott v BPP University Limited. In this case, the Employment Tribunal awarded the Claimant, a former employment law lecturer who suffered with depression and anxiety, £168,047.40 after finding that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed following the Respondent's lack of action and a failure to make reasonable adjustments by neither reducing her workload, nor supporting her.

The second part of Robinson Ralph's special episode of ‘Having A NatteRR’ featuring the wonderful Carolyn Hobdey. If you or your organisation wish to contact Robinson Ralph for general or specific employment law advice, please get in touch at info@robinsonralph.com.

Robinson Ralph presents a special episode of ‘Having A NatteRR’ featuring the wonderful Carolyn Hobdey. Simon, David and Carolyn discuss the issue of bullying and grievances within HR and the particular strains and stresses which individuals who work within HR have faced, and are continuing to face in the current climate. More specifically, they discuss: How to navigate bullying accusations; What to do when a grievance is levelled against HR; and The importance of self-care within HR when it comes to burn out and stress. With Carolyn’s wide range of experience, particularly in relation to mentoring individuals within HR, it’s an episode you cannot afford to miss. In fact, it's such a good episode that it comes in two parts!

Robinson Ralph is back with a brand new episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.This week, David, Jane, and Imogen discuss the case of Aylott v BPP University Limited. In this case, the Employment Tribunal awarded the Claimant, a former employment law lecturer who suffered with depression and anxiety, £168,047.40 after finding that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed following the Respondent's lack of action and a failure to make reasonable adjustments by neither reducing her workload, nor supporting her.As you may have gathered, Simon is not on this particular episode. As a result, the chances are that you might actually enjoy this week's podcast. At the very least, you may enjoy David's thoughts on where the phrase "mad as a box of frogs" may have come from.