Our employment expert takes a look at the woeful management styles on BBC3’s show ‘The Call Centre’
This week saw the last episode of BBC3's fly-on-the-wall television show "The Call Centre". The show, set in a Swansea call centre, followed maverick boss Nev Wilshire managing up to 700 employees as they made the cold calls that we hate to receive. While the series was on air, Nev's call centre made headlines when two of its major clients were fined £225,000 for breaching privacy rules. But what could some of Nev's people management gaffes cost his company?
Sex discrimination
Episode one saw Nev trying to mend the broken heart of administrator Kayleigh Davies by parading her around the office in search of potential suitors. Nev even arranged a speed dating session for her.
Claims for direct sex discrimination and harassment ‘because of’ of sex spring to mind but, unlike sexual harassment claims (involving unwanted conduct of a sexual nature), those claims would only succeed if Kayleigh could show that Nev would not treat a male colleague in the same way. Perhaps unsurprisingly the record shows that Nev would; in a subsequent episode we see him parading telemarketer George Vorkas around the office, trying to find him a date. Nev's equally poor treatment of both sexes might just provide him with a defence. However, when, following the speed dating, Kayleigh finds herself matched with call centre heart throb Dwayne Batchelor, Nev warns Dwayne off, arguing that Kayleigh is too delicate for him. Nev did not do the same when George Vorkas was matched with confident Lisa Grinter. So Kayleigh’s claim could be made out.
As with all discrimination awards, Kayleigh's would include an element for "injury to feelings", within one of the following bands: £600 to £6,000, £6,000 to £18,000, and £18,000 - £30,000. If Kayleigh could show it was serious discrimination, an award of up to £6,000 might be achievable. If the discrimination caused Kayleigh financial loss, her claim could be worth much more since compensation for discrimination claims is uncapped. Let’s say Kayleigh resigned, was unemployed for a year and was awarded a year’s salary of, say, £16,000.
Possible value: £22,000.
Disability discrimination
When former telesales worker turned tea lady, Hayley Pearce's efforts at organising a Strictly Come Dancing spin off fail dismally, Nev gives her the task of literally organising a ‘piss up’ in a brewery. This might be humorous were it not that Nev knows that Hayley suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. To the extent that this amounts to a disability, Hayley could have a claim for disability discrimination.
A direct disability discrimination claim is unlikely since, as we know, Nev would probably treat a non-disabled employee just as poorly. But Hayley could have a claim for “discrimination for something arising in consequence of a disability” for which no comparator is required, or a claim for harassment.
İf Hayley were to succeed, her injury to feelings award could be as high as £18,000, particularly if the tribunal took account of the regular teasing by her colleagues and Nev. Again, if the discrimination caused financial loss, Hayley's claim would be uncapped but, let’s put hers too at a year's salary of, say, £14,000.
Possible value: £32,000
Failure to follow a disciplinary procedure
In episode three, apparently without warning, leading salesman Matthew "Chicken Head" Thomas is pulled in to a disciplinary hearing to explain several unauthorised absences.
Matthew could argue that his employer’s complete failure to follow a disciplinary procedure amounted either to a breach of a contractual disciplinary policy or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. He could have resigned and attempted to claim constructive unfair dismissal.
Since Matthew is top salesman and earns approximately £300 a week in commission, added to an estimated basic salary of £14,000, his claim could be worth £30,000 (although anything up to the statutory cap of £74,200 could be achievable). Given the failure to follow even the minimum procedure set out in the ACAS Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, his compensation could be increased by as much as 25 per cent before the cap is applied.
Possible value: £37,500
On this analysis, Nev's regular flouting of basic HR procedures could cost him as much as £91,500. It is possible that Nev relies on his strangely endearing, almost paternalistic, management style to dissuade employees from bringing claims. Either that or his attitude towards tribunal litigation is in keeping with the mantra he applies to the rest of his life and work: SWSWSWN - Some Will, Some Won't, So What? Next!
Laurence O'Neill is an associate solicitor in at Morrisons Solicitors LLP
For more employment law
articles, visit HR-inform