From bad behaviours to Tribunal: How small issues can escalate without proper resolution

Tribunals across the UK are increasingly ruling on cases involving seemingly minor workplace behaviour, such as non-verbal gestures, tone, or misunderstandings. What begins as subtle behaviour a sigh, a snarky email, an offhand joke can escalate if left unchecked. Recent tribunal decisions underscore how easily things can spiral, and how employers are held accountable not just for conduct, but for how they respond to it.Recent rulings show how quickly unresolved issues can snowball into legal action. In this blog we work through some recent tribunal cases linked to workplace behaviours and look at how early conflict resolution can help deal with situations before they escalate.

Non-verbal gestures as bullying

A dental nurse in Edinburgh won £25,254 at tribunal after experiencing persistent eye‑rolling from a colleague, found to be “rude, isolating, bullying and belittling.” Her repeated complaints went unaddressed, leading to significant emotional harm and constructive dismissal. The judgment suggests employers can be held liable for damages if a worker is found to have used the gesture to target a colleague. Ms Howieson, who ended up quitting her job, won an unfair ­constructive dismissal claim at the hearing in the city. Clearly ignoring complains from an individual and leaving them unaddressed is not ideal or best practice. In this case, the situation appears to have been left unattended to and has subsequently escalated. Equally, however, you would expect individuals to know what passes for acceptable behaviour and eye-rolling clearly was not, and is not, appropriate. Not dealing with conflict in this case has led to a hefty financial fine and potentially may have impacted the environment and culture within the organisation.

Sighing as Disability Discrimination

A software engineer diagnosed with ADHD successfully claimed disability discrimination after his manager repeatedly sighed and made derogatory remarks about his work habits. Judge Rayner ruled that the sighs and gestures amounted to unlawful discrimination linked to the employees condition. The tribunal acknowledged these non‑verbal cues were discriminatory and dismissive and that the repeated non-verbal expressions had a “damning effect” on the employee’s anxiety and self-esteem. Nonverbal expressions of disappointment or irritation could amount to discrimination, a judge said. This case sets an important precedent for how non-verbal conduct can be interpreted by an employment tribunal. Sighing, tutting, or rolling eyes, particularly in response to performance issues tied to a disability, can be interpreted as hostile and discriminatory. Equally, employers should be clear about what inappropriate behaviour is in the workplace and what the consequences are when guidelines are not followed.

Dismissal over an “Inappropriate joke”

A primary school teacher with over 35 years of experience was dismissed after making a “joke” saying she’d “whack” students who might misbehave during a SAT prep class. A student with limited English felt threatened and complained. The tribunal rejected her appeal, emphasising the safeguarding risk, even when intended as a joke.

Judge Jack Feeny said in his closing comments:

“I do not consider whether or not the comment was intended as a joke to be particularly important. It was plainly an inappropriate thing to say….. A teacher may get away with a comment in these circumstances if all children receive it as a light-hearted comment and laugh along. It is common ground that this was not what happened here. The risk of making such a joke is that if even only one child is upset by it, it must amount to a significant safeguarding issue.”

Interpretation here was key. What the teacher in this case felt was a “joke” the student felt threatened by.

What this teaches us about workplace banter

• Intention vs. Impact: The teacher intended humour, but safeguarding and equality law in the UK focus on the impact of behaviour. In this case, the joke created fear in a vulnerable pupil.

• Context Matters: “Banter” in a staffroom among peers carries different weight than a comment made to a child in a classroom, especially one with language barriers. Employers must consider who hears the remark and how it might reasonably be interpreted.

• Power Dynamics: Just like managers in the workplace, teachers hold authority. A casual remark from someone in power can easily cross the line because of the authority attached to it.

• Cultural and Linguistic Sensitivity: The case highlights how jokes can be misinterpreted across cultural or language differences. What was, according to the teacher, intended to be sarcasm could be interpreted as a real threat to another.

• Zero Tolerance in Certain Sectors: In high-stakes environments like education, health, or care, safeguarding duties mean that even “offhand jokes” can amount to gross misconduct.

Why These Escalate—and Why It Matters

These cases demonstrate that:

• Minor behaviour matters. Eye-rolling, sighs, tone, and jokes even if “harmless” to the speaker can cause real harm and lead to formal grievances.

• Lack of action compounds problems. Ignoring or downplaying small incidents erodes trust and exposes employers to legal risk.

• The context is key. Behaviours that fly under the radar in casual settings like schools or team chats can be damaging in diverse workplaces, especially where power imbalances or vulnerabilities exist.

3 Early Intervention Strategies to Stop Escalation

1. Provide training to your Managers and Leaders
   Make sure your Managers are equipped to manage conflict. Setting out guideline and rules for managing conflict helps Managers cope when difficult situations arise.

2. Offer Mediation Before Legal Escalation
   In many cases, a facilitated, neutral conversation can resolve misunderstandings—saving time, relationships, and resources.

3. Engage External Investigators When Needed
   Bring in outside expertise when allegations involve managers, multiple parties, or conflict of interest. External investigators add fairness and credibility—often defusing the situation more effectively.

How we can help

Our structured, impartial approach supports employers in managing sensitive situations before they become legal crises, we can support with:

• Neutral Assessments: Our neutral assessments provide a clear, unbiased view of the facts, ensuring that any decisions taken are credible, fair, and defensible.

• Mediation Services: Mediation can be a constructive alternative, helping colleagues rebuild relationships and move forward.

• Workplace Investigations: When allegations are serious, impartial investigation is essential. We carefully distinguish between issues best addressed through coaching or mediation and those requiring a formal fact-finding process. Our investigations are thorough, evidence-based, and clearly documented—giving employers the confidence to act fairly and lawfully, whatever the outcome.

Get In Contact

« All posts