This case should be used as a case study on why mediation is generally the best way forward to deal with the fall-out over reorganisation or claims of bullying in the workplace.

The claimant was Associate Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development of the Trust and effectively head of HR. She reported to the deputy CEO but was not a board member. The board brought in an external consultant with experience in HR to look at a reorganisation and increase in professionalism of the Trust. To say that the claimant and the consultant did not get on is an understatement. They were very different characters, with different experiences of HR at different levels. 

An interim restructuring saw the consultant appointed to the position of interim director of workforce with a place on the executive team. Although she appears to have had no interest in taking the position long-term, the claimant did not believe this and resented having to report to the consultant rather than the deputy CEO. The High Court concluded that:

"[TB, claimant and Associate Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development] did have the opportunity to work with, rather than against, a very experienced HR executive, and to derive positive benefit from the working relationship. It is true that Christine Pilgrem [external consultant and “very experienced HR executive”] did candidly tell [TB] that she did not think she had the skills and qualities needed in a putative HR director of the kind envisaged. However, Caroline Shaw [CEO] expressly assured [TB] that if she applied she would be a candidate for any such new role. In any event she was told that her present position was secure until the end of the executive review, and that, even if another person became HR director, there could be room for a supporting position that she might be qualified to perform. However, she appears to have reacted very pessimistically, practically assuming fairly early on that she was most unlikely to become the HR director and even that she would be left with no job at the Trust. It is notable that after the incident of 11 November 2010, Roger Spencer [deputy CEO] assured her that her present job was secure for the time being and that if a new post of HR director was created she could apply for that post. 

"Save in one respect, therefore, I do not find any breach of duty on the part of the Trust. I have rejected the claim that Christine Pilgrem bullied or harassed [TB], but it is admitted that on 10 November 2010 she did swear at and threaten [TB]. The Trust has accepted responsibility for Christine Pilgrem's actions. The misconduct was a significant one. Christine Pilgrem did not on that occasion treat [TB] with the respect to which she was entitled and which she could properly expect. The threat in particular was wholly improper and was likely to cause, and did cause, real distress and well founded anxiety. It was by then clear to Christine Pilgrem that [TB] was in earnest about leaving the Trust and was actively seeking employment, at the same or a similar level, in which she could, as a single mother, continue to support herself and her two young daughters in what she reasonably believed was an appropriate manner. The prospect that Christine Pilgrem might seek to interfere with her future plans in the manner threatened was not one to which she should have been exposed. 

"However, this breach should not be taken out of proportion..."

Most readers will have come across the mixture of personality clashes and poor communications that lead to these types of cases. However, the claimant lost her case for damages. The one incident of unprofessional conduct by the consultant was not enough to tip the balance in favour of a valid bullying or harassment claim because the damage was not foreseeable:

"... even if I had concluded that Christine Pilgrem's conduct on 10 November 2010 had caused, or materially contributed, to [TB's] medical condition, I would not have found that such a result was reasonably foreseeable. The conduct was a significant breach of duty, but in the overall context was an isolated incident of relatively short duration which could not reasonably be expected to cause, or materially contribute to, a significant psychiatric illness."

And that’s only the personal injuries case. The claimant has an unfair dismissal case pending as well over her dismissal for transferring files to her personal email address whilst off on the sick. Whether she can afford to pursue it after losing in the High Court is another matter. 
http://bit.ly/1FBFMkV