Employers faced with a headline grabbing employment dispute may win the tribunal battle, but lose the PR war. James Boyd- Wallis outlines the communication and reputation management issues to consider when facing an employment case regarding a current or former employee.

Married HBOS executive Haley Tansey is suing Halifax Bank of Scotland for £600,000 because she was allegedly forced to quit her job after suffering from ‘stress’ caused by unwanted advances during business trips, comments about her figure and the sexist culture of her fellow bankers, an employment tribunal was told.

Mrs Tansey told how one manager stripped naked in her hotel room after she woke up to discover he had got in and was watching her sleep, it was alleged. Another man said he liked it when she leant over the desk because he always got a ‘good eyeful’, while men in one office were said to have watched pornography on their laptops at night during working hours.

This story above, originally reported in the Daily Mail, is a now familiar tale. Almost every day there seems to be yet another employment case story detailing salacious and serious accusations about employees or bosses at well known and hitherto well thought of firms.

Why have we seen increased media interest in employment disputes and importantly what actions should companies take to limit potential damage to their reputation. 

A rise in allegations

Firstly, more claims are making their way through the ET. The Employment Tribunals Service statistics show there has been an increase in the number of single claims to 63,000 in the year ending 31 March 2009. This represents a rise of 15 percent compared with 2007/2008. However, on closer inspection, the ET claims have actually gone down; the ET accepted 151,000 claims in 2008/9 compared to 189,300 claims in 2007/8. But given the economic climate it is very likely that these figures will rise again.

So it is clear to see that figures only do not account for why the media is paying more attention to ET claims.

Employment disputes attract media attention because they have a very strong human interest element which is appealing to newspaper editors, who understand what their readers are interested in and what they can relate to. Claimants are often portrayed as victims in a David versus Goliath battle.

All reporters have a duty to their news editor and paper to find the most interesting (whether that be lurid or otherwise) angle of any story. For ET cases this will mean that the story focuses on the allegations of extreme bad behaviour such as sexual misconduct or drug misuse, as the story in the introduction above demonstrates. The story will then report further allegations of wrongdoing by the employer, colleagues or bosses, how an employee has been treated and, of course, the amount of money that is being claimed.

Media interest intensifies the more extreme and shocking the allegations – and unfortunately it is not just tabloids that will write explicit reports. The interest will be compounded as soon as a household name is involved, such as a bank, a FTSE 100 company or, to put it bluntly, where sex, drugs and rock and roll are involved.

Hitting the headlines

Even a superficial google news search reveals a number of employment cases to have hit the headlines recently. Among the case of Mrs Tansey above is the dispute Christian counsellor who refused to offer sex advice to gay couples who failed in religious his discrimination claim. Despite the failure of the case, Relate, the relationship charity and employer, was still dragged through the media only to their detriment. 

Meanwhile, a millionaire hedge fund boss has been accused of sending a work experience girl a ‘vile sexual email’ in another case at the central London ET. This evidence was given as part of a claim brought by Jordan Wimmer, who is suing Mr Lowe for £4million, claiming he hounded her out of her £577,000-a-year job at his firm, Nomos Capital. Miss Wimmer claims her former boss brought prostitutes to business functions, made her attend a strip club and hired her and two colleagues because they looked like ‘Charlie’s Angels’ to lure investors. 

Of course many claims that are brought in the Employment Tribunal will prove that genuine discrimination occurred. However media interest in a case often happens way before any evidence has been presented and therefore companies may find themselves losing the case – and reputations – in the court of public opinion even if they are subsequently successful in the court of law.

Effective internal and external perception handling is therefore a necessity for those firms which are at risk of going through a high profile employment dispute.

Be prepared

The best prepared companies are those that develop processes and systems for communicating during crises and situations- think of it as an early warning system. Like any other business process reputation management should be discussed and monitored as an ongoing risk management   process.

This process should start with an issues management team that includes the HR director, PR or marketing director and members of the board as necessary. The issue management team need to work together to ensure all potential disputes are highlighted early and appropriately planned for. A chain of command should be established where overall responsibility is clearly defined for both internal and external audiences. The next step is to prepare communication plans for all audiences that the issue might affect with key spokespeople assigned to each audience – for example, the HR director would approve all internal communications but might identify the HR manager or specific team leaders to communicate the agreed statement to individual employees or teams.

Internal communications can play second fiddle to external communications during a crisis but its importance should not be overlooked.  When claims are brought against a firm it will be likely that a number of employees, managers or directors will be called as either claimant or defendant witnesses. This, quite rightly, will cause many employees to worry about the affect this will have on their job and their firm. Given this, it is vital that internal communication is provided quickly and accurately at all stages of the tribunal. Another important consideration here is that your corporate reputation begins with your employees; they act as brand ambassadors for the firm. If they are fully briefed with the approved message they are more likely to stand behind the firm than if they are kept in the dark.

For the external audiences, the PR or marketing director may lead all communication as it is always best to present only once voice when communicating with the media. The firm should also employ a staff and reception policy for dealing with external inquiries – this is something that is often overlooked but which can lead to unapproved comments being ‘leaked’ to the press. The firm should also consider if they have fully assessed the media risk of the claim, what might he or she allege? What is the likely angle that the newspapers will take? Are there any more claims which are likely to surface during the tribunal, if so, how will these be handled.

By having this type of contingency plan in place firms can prepare properly for managing the information that is communicated around an issue in a controlled manner and, importantly, stop the dispute from turning into a crisis and severely damaging reputation. 

Getting in the experts

Often specialist PR consultants are brought in to deal with issues and crisis management. This approach has a number benefits. In-house HR professionals are extremely busy dealing with the day-to-day issues of running a large and complex organisation and PR and marketing professionals are often too busy promoting their firms in a positive light to engaging in a serious issue or crisis which can take up a disproportionate amount of their combined resource.

External consultants can also help to inject clarity into the situation by removing the emotion from what can be highly charged, emotive situations.  The consultant also acts as a buffer between his client and the media, mediating between both parties’ respective positions in relation to the issue, which can help to ensure that the client’s relationship with the media remains in tact once the storm has passed.      

At all stages a PRs job is to inject clarity into a crisis ensuring that the journalists are properly informed so as to best reflect the firm’s position.

And as for Mrs Tansey…we will have to wait to see if she was successful in her claim. 

James Boyd-Wallis, Senior Account Manager, Byfield Consultancy – a dedicated legal PR, crisis and reputation management consultancy.