If 'Bullying' means that you're giving Civil Servents tasks to do then please carry on. I bet they spent the day making paper aeroplanes, waiting for their pensions.

I had an employee who moaned to me because the manager I appointed gave him jobs to do.

You bet?

The alleged behaviour - of demeaning, bullying, and belittling staff - is unacceptable in the workplace.

Accordingly, most large organisations have procedures to investigate and address such unprofessional actions.

It is now time for those to commence investigations.

I don't think Boris's opinion counts for much on this, because even the most rampant bully wouldn't try it with the prime minister.
They are usually very sweet to anyone in power.

Two significant factors in these investigations are whether the admonishments were fair - the other is witnesses, if they took place verbally.

It's a court process, to all intents and purposes - which is why the Permanent Secretary, who resigned, immediately indicated his intention of legal action.

Officials who witnessed conversations will be asked to sign statements - and written reproachments will be carefully analyzed in detail.

Highly likely that the surprise decision of the PS to resign was after his confirmation (and his lawyers) that clear evidence exists.

Barney wrote:
You bet?

The alleged behaviour - of demeaning, bullying, and belittling staff - is unacceptable in the workplace.

Accordingly, most large organisations have procedures to investigate and address such unprofessional actions.

It is now time for those to commence investigations.





I have a wager with you if you want one.

Just to note some things as both a victim of employment bullying and one who represented his wife at a tribunal.

The tribunal we had a recording showing three managers for 40 minutes berating by wife over an error that in reality had errors from many departments and people - all items needed addressing that would prevent future problems.
The recording demonstrated unjustified bullying. The judge accepted it was over the top but to prevent us from winning re named bullying as "robust management"

So point one is civil court hearings are controlled by a judge without full transparency (Has quite a bit) and certainly no known accountability. (similar kinds of problems with Freddie Starr vs Karin Ward Judge said "....I find they were true". Once the judge used a little more honest phrase "likely" true - fair enough! The whole case showed all witnesses were highly unreliable from both sides)
So in a civil court a fair hearing for either side is a lottery draw. A tribunal can be fair, or one sided and no accountability in UK justice to maintain a fair balanced court hearing exists in practice.

Second point is evidence. Unless one can record a conversation it is near impossible to obtain. The problem is exactly the same when a judge allows a friend or family member to testify to some historic alleged (or even an actual) crime of sexual abuse. In the Weinstein case of the ancient 1990's rape claim the jury took a lot of interest in it as it was the one item that had the friend's testimony of confirmation of the alleged victim telling of the rape to her friend. Friends and family will not normally want to or can even afford to contradict what they have been requested by the alleged victim to say.

In employment for employees to tell the true risks them losing their job, getting a bad CV and even not been able to get work again. So it is a case of the three monkeys see nothing , hear nothing , say nothing.

With the reduced leverage and power of the unions - in some industries - viable alternatives have come to the fore.

Plant councils, employee representative groups and management/worker committees are now common.

With agreed procedures for grievances, disputes etc. Often - with an independent/outside arbitrator, when required.

Industrial action doesn't happen as much because of this.

However the alleged and robust management style of Ms Patel seems extreme - bordering on harassment and even slander, if true.

Thus falling, perhaps, outside the terms of agreed procedures.

Evidence will be key - who saw/heard what? In my experience of large organisations - knives were drawn rather surreptitiously...