Managing Conflict before it reaches an Employment Tribunal

For most HR professionals, an Employment Tribunal claim is not just a legal issue, it reflects on overall people management, risk control, and organisational culture.

Very few cases arrive at tribunal suddenly and HR professionals know the effort, time, energy and emotion that leads up to that point. In almost every instance, the warning signs were present weeks or months earlier: unresolved interpersonal conflict, strained management relationships, things just not feeling right or a grievance process that escalated rather than resolved the issue.

Understanding where conflict escalates, and why, is critical if HR is to intervene early and protect the organisation from unnecessary legal, financial, and reputational risk.

Tribunal Claims Rarely Start with Legal Intent

Employees rarely set out to “take the organisation to tribunal.” More often, they reach that point after a series of missed opportunities for resolution. Whilst there are a handful of employee who are just litigious in nature, most reach the end of their tether, don’t feel they have been listened to and then look at legal action. In hindsight, when we look back, it’s often easy to see the signs and hindsight is a wonderful thing! Common precursors include:

• A breakdown in trust between employee and manager, which could include subtle changes like the way both parties talk about each other

• An informal issue that becomes personalised or positional with neither part looking to move from their stance

• A grievance process that uneasy in terms of what’s been raised

Once an employee believes they are no longer being heard, the conflict shifts from problem-solving to self-protection. At that point, legal escalation becomes far more likely. In Buckinghamshire County Council v Prendergast (ET / EAT) a deteriorating working relationship between a manager and employee ultimately resulted in a tribunal case. Early issues appeared to be a perceived lack of support, strained communications and an employee who felt increasingly marginalized within the organisation. In this case, the dispute did not arise from a single incident or an obvious act of misconduct. Instead, it developed over time through a series of day-to-day management interactions that the employee experienced as undermining and dismissive. The employee was an experienced professional who began to feel that her manager:

• Spoke to her in a way she perceived as belittling or critical

• Questioned her competence in front of others

• Failed to give her proper opportunity to explain or challenge decisions

• Dismissed concerns when they were raised informally

Individually, these incidents may have appeared minor or manageable. There was no dramatic confrontation and no immediate grievance. However, the cumulative effect was a steady erosion of trust. By the time the matter reached tribunal, the employment relationship was already irreparably damaged.

In Mrs S Hamilton v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, an NHS nurse was awarded around £41,000 after behaviour by a colleague led to a total breakdown of trust and confidence and the employer’s failure to take adequate action. Even where awards might not be in the millions, cases like this show how a failure to address relational conflict, even seemingly ‘small’ issues, can still lead to significant financial and reputational risk.

Why Formal Processes Often Accelerate Escalation

Grievance and disciplinary procedures are essential safeguards but they are not conflict resolution tools. Formal processes tend to:

• Lock parties into opposing positions

• Prioritise evidence over understanding

• Reduce scope for repair once relationships are damaged

From an professional’s perspective, this presents a dilemma:
the organisation is procedurally safe, but relationally exposed. Once a conflict becomes defined by policies, timelines, and outcomes rather than behaviour and impact, HR’s room for manoeuvre narrows significantly.

The Critical Window for Early Intervention

The most effective time to manage conflict is before a formal grievance is submitted, Solicitors become involved or HR is asked to “investigate” rather than resolve. That’s often easier said than done, HR can’t be everywhere all the time (what an awful environment that would be to work in!) and managers need to be able to spot early signs of conflict and be able to self regulate, which is often tricky. In Buckinghamshire County Council v Prendergast (ET / EAT) the warning signs were subtle but visible.

This early stage is where HR can:

• Reframe the issue as a shared problem

• Separate intent from impact

• Support managers without removing accountability

• Introduce impartial resolution options without triggering defensiveness

Importantly, early intervention does not mean bypassing policy, it means using the right tool at the right time which could include mediation to work on repairing and building relationships.

Why External Resolution Can De-Risk HR’s Role

HR cannot always be both process owner and neutral resolver and lets be honest, HR also can’t be all things to all people all the time. When conflict becomes emotive or entrenched employees may mistrust internal impartiality, even without any evidence for them to feel this way and Managers may feel exposed or blamed.

Independent mediation can;

• Neutrality without loss of control

• A confidential space for honest dialogue

• Help reduce workloads within HR teams

Used early, this approach often resolves matters that formal processes cannot.

The Strategic Payoff of Early Conflict Resolution

Organisations that intervene early consistently see:

• Fewer formal grievances

• Reduced tribunal risk and legal spend

• Less time diverted from strategic HR priorities

• Improved employee trust in HR

• Stronger manager capability over time

For HR professionals, managing conflict early is not about being “soft”, it is about being commercially and strategically disciplined.

Resolution at Work works with organisations to intervene before conflict becomes formal, entrenched, or legal. Our work is designed to complement, not replace, internal HR processes, giving HR professionals an additional, proportionate option when conflict sits in the grey area before formal action. Get in contact if you would like some expert support in managing conflict.

« All posts