Private and Confidential
CONFIDENTIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT TO
THE POST OFFICE LIMITED
By
Simon Stephen
Heminsley Law
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
INTRODUCTION
aa.
Heminsley, a law firm regulated by the SRA with particular expertise in carrying out
independent employee related investigations, was asked by the Post Office Limited (the
“Company”) to undertake this investigation on 13 April 2023. I, Simon Stephen, was appointed
as the investigator. This report represents my findings and mine alone.
BACKGROUND
2.1.
The initial background is as set out in the Terms of Reference at Appendix 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.1.
3.2,
3.3.
3.4.
This report highlights key evidence obtained during the course of the investigation. It is
important that the extracts provided are viewed in the context of the whole evidential picture.
As a result, the totality of the evidence obtained is appended to this report and should be read
in full by any relevant decision maker. The transcripts appended at Appendix 4 contain all the
comments and amendments made by interviewees. Where material these have been added to
the extracts in the report. It is also key to read the written response to the allegations provided
by JD on 13 May 2023 at Appendix 2 and documents at Appendix 5.
1am not asked to make any findings in respect of credibility but I consider that it is important,
in this executive summary, to highlight that there appears to be conflicts of evidence in the
accounts provided during interview. These conflicts, and evidence from other sources which
may assist the decision maker, are set out in the detail below. These conflicts could be seen to
support JD’s assertion that there are possible ulterior motives behind the concerns raised, and
particularly those of i=
The concerns raised arise out of the relationship between JD and members of the Company’s
People Leadership Team (“PLT”) and in particular oh At the time JD joined the
Company, on 1 December 2022, the People Team report they had not had consistent
unofficially stepping up to support the interim CPO (AW) and report having autonomy. JD
appears to have had a difficult relationship with her predecessor (AW)
handover and relationships and interactions with others, in particulal
seen as supportive of AW. JD reports that they were resistant to her
assist her to either bed in or move forward with her remit.
iwho were
ind did not
These relationship issues appear to have come to a head in the last week of January and the
k of February 2023. Witnesses report strained PLT meetings with conflict between JD,
te “Witnesses report being unsettled by JD bringing in ex-colleagues into senior
positions quickly after she joined. Witnesses report being further unsettled by the messaging
they received in relation to projects such as the It appears that
the conflict between JD and the other PLT members, may have adversely affected messages
2
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
flowing down to the wider team. ? perceptions may also have been influenced by
JD’s management style, language, and physical expressions. Witnesses report a perception that
she does not listen, can use derogatory language, raised her voice and can be ‘erratic’.
3.5. Witnesses gave evidence that JD responded to criticism and challenge with what they perceive
as aggression. JD reports that she was simply trying to move forward with what she was
required to do, whilst managing a pre-existing difficult working environment with resistant
members of the PLT
in particular) who she believes were acting against her.
Sensitive - Whistleblower
3.7. In summary
3.7.1. There may be a case to answer in respect of whether JD’s behaviour has, on occasion, met
the definition of bullying as set out in the Company’s Dignity at Work policy.
3.7.2.There does appear to be a case to answer as to whether JD has failed to follow Company
process in respect of recruitment.
3.7.3.There may also be a case to answer that since joining, JD’s approach and conduct has
contributed to a working environment of a nature that has in turn contributed to members
of the PLT resigning and/or going on sick leave.
3.8. In mitigation, however, the evidence would also seem to support a proposition that the issues
that have arisen between JD and others, leading to the complaints being raised, may be based
on the following:
3.8.1.JD was seeking to fulfil her remit and took decisions, including firm management, where
this was required,
3.8.23
j Sensitive - Whistleblower
3.8.6.While JD had not von over the ‘hearts and minds’ of colleagues, this was not helped by
the approach of
3.9. While the evidence provided ‘could, therefore, support the allegations against JD, having
nd “tin particular.
engaged with her, this investigator holds the view that the behaviours referred to may not be
borne of malice but may be a result of JD seeking to fulfil her remit but, in doing so, her
handling of a challenging environment, and obstructive members of the PLT, was in a manner
which may have lacked awareness, appreciation or understanding of the impact her
behaviours, and approach, was perceived to have had.
3.10. Specific conclusions against each allegation are set out below:
LETS-0032629902
Report Section
Allegation
Conclusion
7.2
JD’s behaviour is rude and
aggressive including pointing
fingers, slamming doors and rude
and/or aggressive language.
CONCLUSION: I believe that there
is sufficient evidence to find that
there is a case to answer in
relation to the allegation that JD,
at times, exhibited behaviour and
language which could be (and
was) perceived as rude and
aggressive.
In particular, the evidence
relating to JD’s physical gestures
and expressions, her abrupt
manner, her tone of voice and
her language towards and about
colleagues, when taken together,
could meet the definition of
bullying under the Company’s
policies.
This conclusion also takes into
account the evidence, and
conclusions, considered under
the specific further allegations
below and in particular 7.3, 7.4
and 7.6.
However, the evidence needs to
be considered in the wider
context and the points of
mitigation identified when
considering whether it meets the
definition of bullying in the
Company policies.
73
Been openly critical and rude
about individuals and the
Company, including calling
people ‘idiots’, ‘twits’, ‘minions’,
‘underlings’ and ‘useless’ and
referring to an intent to remove
role or dismiss people.
CONCLUSION: I believe that there
is sufficient evidence to find that
there is a case to answer in
relation to the allegation that JD
was critical and rude about
individuals and the Company,
including calling people ‘idiots’
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
and ‘useless’ and referring to an
intent to remove roles or dismiss
but not that this
was openly said outside of 1-1s
or meetings with PLT members so
as to be considered as bullying
under the Company’s policies.
However, the evidence needs to
be considered with the wider
allegations, the wider context
and the points of mitigation
identified.
74
JD shouted at and/or raised her
voice at staff
CONCLUSION: I do not believe
that there is sufficient evidence
to find that there is a case to
answer that JD ‘shouted’ at staff.
I believe, however, that there is
sufficient evidence to find that
there is a case to answer in
relation to the allegation that JD
raised her voice at staff, but not
(when taken in isolation) that
this could be considered as
bullying under the Company’s
policies.
However, the evidence needs to
be considered with the wider
allegations, the wider context
and the points of mitigation
identified.
75
JD demonstrated
CONCLUSION: I do not believe
that there is sufficient evidence
that there is a case to answer in
relation to the allegation that JD
AN! sense eto I
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
76
Belittling, berating and/or
patronising
CONCLUSION: I believe that there
is sufficient evidence to find that
there is a case to answer in
relation to the allegation that JD
belittled, berated and patronised
staff. In particular her behaviours
and
and with
a perceived pattern of not
JON: Sensitive - Whistleblower
response to challenge, could .
meet the definition of bullying
under the Company's policies.
However, the evidence needs to
be considered with the wider
allegations, the wider context
and evidence and the points of
mitigation identified when
considering whether it meets the
definition of bullying in the
Company policies.
77
Micromanagement
CONCLUSION: I do not believe
that there is sufficient evidence
to find that there is a case to
answer that JD micromanaged
staff by restricting 1-1s with:
or requiring sign off on fina
expenditure.
78
JD unilaterally changed, or sought
to change, Company
decisions/initiatives/ programmes
CONCLUSION: I do not believe
there is sufficient evidence to
find that there is a case to
6
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
which has undermined and
blocked stai¥’s role and
workstreams, including cancelling
the recognition award
procurement
answer in relation to the
allegation that JD unilaterally
changed, or sought to change,
Company
decisions/initiatives/programmes
which has undermined and
blocked staff’s role and
workstreams which could be
considered as bullying under the
Company's policies.
79
JD breached, or spoke openly of
an intention to breach, Post
Office Limited processes
CONCLUSION: I believe that there
is sufficient evidence to find that
there is a case to answer for the
allegation that JD breached Post
Office Limited processes in
relation to recruitment. In
particular there was no open
process followed with internal or
external advertising and no
official interview process.
However, the evidence needs to
be considered with the wider
allegations, the wider context
and evidence and the points of
mitigation identified
The content of the meeting
interactions between them, and
whether either party exhibited
unacceptable behaviour during or
leading up to this meeting.
CONCLUSION: With the exception
parties may have behaved
inappropriately, I do not believe
that there is sufficient evidence
to find that there is a case to
answer that JD, or! exhibited
‘unacceptable’ behaviours, which
could potentially meet the
definition of bullying under the
Company’s policies, in the
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
meeting with:
1 do however believe that there is
sufficient evidence to find that
there is a case to answer that JD
which could potentially
meet the definition of bullying
under the Company’s policies.
However, the evidence needs to.
be considered with the wider
allegations, the wider context
and evidence and the points of
mitigation identified.
The above are alleged to be a
pattern of behaviour which has
created and/or contributed to a
lack of trust in the working
relationship between JD and
staff. Further it has created
and/or contributed to a toxic
working environment which has
led to individuals resigning
and/or being absent and
impacting on their health.
CONCLUSION: I do not believe
that there is sufficient evidence
to find that there is a case to
answer that the above, taken
overall, is a pattern of behaviour
which has created a lack of trust
in the working relationship
between JD and staff, or that it
has created a toxic working
environment which has led to
individuals resigning and/or
being absent and impacting on
their health.
There are however grounds to
find that there is case to answer
that the overall behaviours
identified above, when taken
together, have contributed to a
lack of trust between JD an:
and JD and!
contributed to them resigning
and/or being absent and
impacting on their health.
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
However, the evidence needs to I
be considered with the wider I
allegations, the wider context I
and evidence set out above and
the points of mitigation
identified.
haviour in the
3.11. ‘is no longer employed but it was within my scope to consider
meeting of?'s and in events leading to it. I have set out the evidence in relation to
this in the relevant headings below. I was also provided with, by JD, information as to specific
and wider concerns as t F ehaviour in the workplace. Where, relevant to the scope, I have
set these concerns out under a relevant heading. The evidence appears to support the
proposition that there had been genuine concerns aroun wn approach, style and
conduct which may have been appropriate to consider under a ! formal process. These are fully
covered in JD’s written response at Appendix 2. In summary, JD raised concerns relating t
approach to process (see section 7.9 in particular) and also raised concerns JD about}.
behaviour in turn being aggressive, undermining JD and setting her up to fail (see 7.. 10in in
particular). JD also raised wider concerns raised by colleagues in the business as to!-
approach (see JD’s written response and 7.10 in particular).
3.12. At all times the decision maker may want to take into account the following:
3.12.1. the work environment in the People Team which JD inherited on 1 December 2022
when she joined the team;
3.12.2. that JD’s role as CPO is to lead on people related initiatives, processes and policies
including the Company’s culture, strategy, and leadership behaviours (and indeed I am
told presented on values and behaviours at the People conference in May 2023);
3.12.3. that all people related policies, including those relating to bullying & harassment, the
code of conduct and recruitment, are sponsored by JD at Group Executive (“GE”) level and
that she should, therefore, be at least seen to support, if not embody, such policies;
3.12.4. that it was clear that certain witnesses who remain employed by the Company were
(and are) concerned as to the potential scope for retaliation and were nervous about
speaking to me.
4, METHODOLOGY
4.1. This report does not provide legal advice.
4.2. The Terms of Reference set out the issues to be investigated (as “Concerns”) as:
4.2.1. The concerns raised by’: = 2
4.2.2. The conduct and behaviours of Jane Davies towar
4.2.3.The Speak Up/PIDA reports/complaints; and
9
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
4.2.4.The content of the meeting between Jane Davies and:
together with previous interactions between them, and whether either party exhibited
unacceptable behaviour during or leading up to this meeting.
4.3. The Terms of Reference set out the scope of my investigation as below:
4,3.1.The Investigator is required to conduct a fact-finding investigation into the Concerns
detailed below. The investigation should be conducted in a fair and impartial manner and
in accordance with any relevant provisions contained within:
The Investigator is asked to make findings in relation to each of the Concerns and to
recommend whether there is a case to answer at a disciplinary hearing.
4.4. I reviewed the information initially provided to me by the Company and have requested, and
been provided with, additional information as the investigation has progressed.
4.5. The concerns raised in the “Speak Up” complaints were similar to and consistent with those
raised by
set out under appropriate headings. These headings are consistent with the allegations put to
JD when I interviewed her.
+ I have therefore considered them together in the evidence and findings below,
4.6. The primary allegations in relation to JD’s conduct related to bullying. Bullying is not a term
defined in law but is a defined term under the Company’s Dignity at Work policy (see below). I
have considered this definition for the purposes of this report. Harassment has a legal
definition and is also a defined term in Dignity at Work (“DAW”) policy, which specifically
provides that harassment is behaviour relating to a protected characteristic. As none of the
allegations in relation to JD’s conduct have been phrased to me as relating to a protected
characteristic, I have focused the evidence and findings using the Company’s definition of
‘Bullying’.
4.7. I interviewed JD in person on 9 May 2023 and have conducted the other witness interviews via
MS Teams. Claire Hamilton has acted as the primary liaison point as required.
4.8. JD was accompanied by her lawyer (Richard Santy) at our interview. I understand this was a
discretionary exception to the usual practice in relation to the right to be accompanied.
PROCESS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
5.1. I undertook the following interviews between 20 April 2023 and 19 May 2023 with the people
listed below (together the Intervi ”
LETS-0032629902
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
5.6.
5.7.
5.8.
The allegations that formed the initial concerns were contained in emails between‘.
JD on 3 — 10 February 2023 which contained, and followed/---—iresignation on 3 February
2023. I understand that, following’ resignation a number of individuals approached the
Company’s ‘Speak Up’ team to raise further concerns as to JD’s behaviour. Claire Hamilton,
from the Speak Up team, liaised with these individuals who agreed to meet with me. Claire
provided me with her initial notes of the calls with these individuals. The evidence I have
provided and considered is however based on my interviews with them directly. Where I
identified further witnesses to interview, I asked Claire to liaise with witnesses direct.
It is important to flag that certain employees were, and are, concerned about potential
retaliation as a result of giving evidence to this investigation. I have notified the Company of
these concerns so that steps can be taken internally to protect participants. I also sought to
present the evidence in a way which addresses their concerns as best as possible. All
interviewees (including JD) were warned that any retaliation could result in separate
disciplinary action.
Summaries of the evidence given at interview, to the extent that they are materially relevant,
are given in the context of the relevant issues below in the Annex. As previously stated, all
transcripts and documentation should be read in full.
In addition to answering questions which I raised, each interviewee was invited to provide any
further information which they believed to be of relevance. I also asked witnesses for some
specific documents, which they provided. I asked the Company for specific further information
which was provided by Claire Hamilton. JD in particular provided a lengthy written response to
the allegations (Appendix 2) which included emails and MS Teams conversations.
I also asked some interviewees some follow up questions in writing and, where relevant, the
responses are included in the evidence below. JD’s responses are included in the document at
Appendix 2.
JD told me that she believed that certain individuals, including}
WhatsApp wit!
believed.
were in contact via
in relation to the matters raised against her. JD also told me that she
‘as, at least in part, responsible for stirring up the allegations. I did consider
Ibut, on balance, came to the view that she was unlikely to be able to provide
balanced evidence as to how JD had behaved after
interviewing:
As explained below, and set out in length in her written response, it is part of JD’s evidence that
she has in fact been the victim of bullying behaviour herself by members of the PLT (and
in particular). I asked those interviewed for copies of any relevant sewie-wisiaions I
means to compel I s they are ex-employees. rovided me with limited
ind a screen shot of a presentation from JD as set out
messages betwee!
below. exchanges wit! which do support however that they were in discussion about
JD. These are at Appendix S in ‘Part 1’. These exchanges also flagged a potential concern rei}
but as this is out of scope, I have not taken it into account or taken any further action. These
a
LET:
POL00458392
POL00458392
$-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
5.10. Witnesses were asked to confirm that the transcripts were accurate records of the
interviews. Subject to two interviewees (including JD) they have confirmed this is the case,
subject to minor corrections of typographical errors and clarifications. The transcripts (with
amendments and comments) are included as Appendices. Where material these amends and
clarifications have been incorporated into the extracts in this report. It is important however to
read the full transcripts and comments.
5.11. I am aware that there may be other people I could have interviewed. In particular there
are likely to be more people who could provide evidence in relation to JD’s behaviour in
meetings and also the behaviour of others (such as!
people she wanted me to interview and‘
JD herself have me a list of
5.12. I am, and was at all times, mindful of my scope and balancing the interests of all
involved — including concluding this process as quickly as possible whilst still providing a
thorough and balanced report. I decided that I did not need to interview any further witnesses
other than those I have set out above. In particular I had asked to interview:-iwho sits on the
People Leadership Team (“PLT”) and who was able to give me an account of meetings, and also
an account of behaviours of others includin,
I also asked to interview:—-—-} who works
closely with JD (and others) and was also present in PLT meetings. I considered that these
witnesses’ evidence assisted in balancing out evidence provided by those who came forward
and enabled me to form a view without further intru:
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblowe
e transcripts,
would likely be put to other witnesses and be contained in this report. They were also informed
that if there were any further processes, the transcripts and contents could be used for those
purposes as well (with the exception of the individual who came forward via Speak Up and did
not wish to be identified).
6. THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1. JD’s contract of employment states, at 5.4, that JD will ‘comply with any rules, policies and
procedures set out on PeopleHub’. \t then specifically states that those rules, policies, and
procedures are however, themselves, not contractual. I understand that the policies set out
below are set out on PeopleHub and are therefore covered by this provision in JD’s contract.
6.2. The Company’s Code of Conduct says at section 6 ‘Summary of Responsibilities’:
6.2.1.EMPLOYEES Post Office requires all employees to: « Take a reasonable and respectful
approach to their work, customers, and fellow colleagues. Ensure that they understand
what standards are expected of them and seek advice where in doubt. « Do their best to
meet the appropriate standards. « Ensure that if they intend to call relevant witnesses
during an investigation, if possible, they give advance notice to their manager. Employees
charged with a criminal offense should notify Post Office as soon as possible. Employees
are not required to let Post Office know about minor offenses such as traffic offenses
(unless this may impact them carrying out duties of their role).
6.2.2. MANAGERS Post Office requires all managers to: = Set a good example. = Ensure that
appropriate standards are communicated to their team(s). * Develop a culture where
employees are supported and assisted in achieving and maintaining the required
standards of conduct. « Manage failure to meet these standards in accordance with the
process and principles explained in this policy. = Consult ER Services for advice and support
before any disciplinary action is taken. ER Services will not make a decision on the
outcome, this responsibility lies with the manager. It is recommended that line managers
undertake employee relations training.
6.2.3.PEOPLE TEAM = To provide timely professional advice to employees and managers on the
implementation of this policy and procedure.
6.3. Section 7: Required Standards provides that:
13
LETS-0032629902
6.4.
6.5.
POL00458392
POL00458392
e This section of the code provides a guide to the standards of conduct we require from
all employees.
Personal conduct
Employees must maintain a high standard of personal conduct including efficiency,
reliability, integrity, sobriety, punctuality and attendance. Employees must also follow
reasonable instructions from their manager.
Respect for other colleagues
Employees must maintain a high standard of conduct in relation to all other colleagues and
treat them with respect and courtesy. They must pay particular attention to the
requirements of our Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Policy and Dignity at Work Policy. They
have a responsibility to protect the health and safety of other colleagues.
Bullying is then included in a list of potential behaviours which could be viewed as gross
misconduct.
The Company’s Dignity at Work Policy states the below in the Preamble (which is also stated in
similar terms at s1 ‘Policy Statement’):
‘The aim of the policy is to help employees create a positive work environment in which everyone
is treated with dignity and respect. At Post Office we are fully committed to equality of
opportunity and promoting a harmonious working environment where no employee feels,
discriminated against, intimidated or threatened for any reason.’
“..Post Office does not tolerate discrimination, bullying, harassment or victimisation.’
‘We want to be absolutely clear and say it again: there is no room for discrimination, bullying,
harassment or victimisation at Post Office. Everyone deserves to enjoy a happy, healthy and safe
working environment. We will support you to speak out, and we will hear you when you do.’
6.6. The DAW defines bullying as: ‘Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an
abuse or misuse of power to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient’.
Examples of unacceptable behaviour are:
* Open aggression, threat, abuse and obscenities, shouting and uncontrolled anger
triggered by trivial situation.
* Humiliating, ridiculing or belittling in front of others, persistent criticism or sarcasm.
* Personal insults and name-calling, spreading malicious rumours.
* Freezing out, ignoring, excluding to isolate victim.
« Excessive supervision and monitoring and being excessively critical about minor things
with malicious intent.
14
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
* Setting an employee up to fail.
* Making threats about job security without foundation.
Bullying, harassment, victimisation and discrimination are acts of misconduct and where
appropriate will be dealt with under the company’s Conduct Code.
If, at any time, there is evidence that allegations of discrimination, bullying, harassment
or victimization have been made in bad faith then disciplinary action may be taken.
6.7. Section 7 sets out the responsibilities for staff:
6.7.1. All = Treat everyone with dignity and respect at all times. * Set a good example through
own behaviours and challenge unacceptable behaviour at the earliest possible
opportunity. * Raise any concerns or issues about discrimination, bullying, harassment, or
victimisation in good faith and in an appropriate and timely way to the appropriate person.
* Respect employees whose abilities, beliefs, religion, cultures, race, sexual identity or
other characteristics are different from their own. * Be open and honest in dealings with
others and respect confidentiality. « Challenge unacceptable behaviour in a way which is
consistent with the values outlined in this policy, and where possible take steps to put an
end to it without delay.
6.7.2. Employees * Be aware that sometimes managers have to take decisions that may prove
unpopular and that on occasions it may not be possible to undertake these decisions ina
democratic way. * Understand that it is reasonable for managers to expect high standards
and to address issues of poor performance if they occur.
6.7.3. Managers * Communicate the expected standards of behaviour to the team. *
Communicate the options available to employees to raise concerns. * Provide open,
honest, constructive and timely feedback on their team’s behaviours and interaction with
others. * Take any issues raised relating to discrimination, bullying, or harassment,
victimisation and take measures to protect an employee. « If unclear about whether their
approach is justifiable/appropriate they should consult with managers of the same or a
higher level and ER Services.
6.7.4.People Team « To provide timely professional advice to employees and managers on the
implementation of this policy and procedure. * Monitoring and reporting matters
concerned with dignity at work across Post Office quarterly
6.8. Section 16 then sets out ‘Acceptable and Reasonable Behaviour by Line Managers to their
team’.
6.8.1.'Within Post Office there is an expectation that managers fulfil their duties and
responsibilities. It is reasonable to expect a manager to carry these out day to day in a fair,
firm and consistent manner. These may involve:
as
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
* Talking to employees about their performance. = Providing constructive feedback. =
Asking an employee to carry out a task in the workplace. « Providing a constructive opinion
when asked. = Taking appropriate action as per the attendance, conduct and performance
policies. Where these line manager responsibilities are carried out in a fair and reasonable
way, they will not constitute acts of discrimination, bullying, harassment or victimisation,
although some employees may feel stressed or anxious while performance functions are
underway.
6.9. Finally, the DAW also says: ‘Employers have a ‘duty of care’ for all their employees. If the mutual
trust and confidence between employer and employee is broken (e.g., through bullying and
harassment at work) then an employee may resign and claim constructive dismissal at an
Employment Tribunal, on the grounds of breach of contract (as long as they have worked for the
employer for two years)’
7. EVIDENCE AND EVIDENTIAL CONTEXT
7.1.1.Summaries of the evidence under each concern are set out at Annex 1, using the same
headings and numbering as in the main body of this report.
7.1.2.Before considering the evidence in relation to the specific concerns it is, I feel, necessary
and helpful to set the context of the environment in which the allegations have arisen.
JD’s overall response
7.1.3.It is important to read JD’s own written response to the allegations. In this JD makes clear
her perception that the allegations arise from a collective of ‘disaffected’ people acting
together. She also says that these people had performance and/or behaviour issues and
they did not want to be managed by her. She gives many, detailed, examples to support
her proposition.
7.1.4.The evidence would suggest that that there is support for the proposition that the formal
about their concerns relating to JD’s behaviour before, and after, their respective
resignations with potential ulterior motives.
environment has improved since then. JD has also provided evidence which would tend to
show that she, and others, did have concerns around the conduct and/or performance of
16
LETS-0032629902
7.1.6.Notwithstanding the above and looking beyond who raised the allegations (and why), the
evidence does show that there have been genuine concerns raised as to JD’s behaviour
and conduct and there is evidence tending to support them in part.
Investigator observations re JD
7.1.7.From interviewing JD, I consider it important to set out some of my own observations
which may assist a decision maker. I did consider that it was possible to see, from my own
interactions, behaviour that could support some of the propositions made about her
perceived conduct and set out below. For example, she started our meeting by saying that
she expected the Company to take action in relation to anyone who had made false
allegations.
7.1.8.JD also appeared to be focussed on other people’s behaviour rather than her own. This is
again a theme that came across in the written response.
7.1.9.1 also noticed that her frustrations and feelings could be made clear through physical
gestures. For example, she did, on one occasion, point her finger when making a point and
she would gesticulate with her arms. She did also at times bump her hands on the table (to
the point that the transcribers of the interview fed back that it did at times make the
transcription difficult). I did not consider that she did this, on purpose, to try and be
aggressive or intimidating.
7.1.10. I also observed that JD also raised her hands in the air and leant back in a manner th:
appeared similar to that described to me by witnesses. I summarised this to JD as!
i Lalso observed that JD adopted a!
aid to her, which mirrored the allegation{ I made as to
JD’s behaviour in the meeting on:
when telling me wha
(see below).
7.1.11. She also, on at least one occasion, seemed to stop herself from saying things she may
have realised were similar to the allegations. For example, she appeared to refer to
expressions on people’s faces on at least one occasion which could be seen to be similar to
7.1.12. At times I could have formed a view that that JD was not listening to what was being put
to her as she wanted to make her own point. For example, I put to her that — regardless of
what she accepted happened - that if the alleged behaviours did happen then that could
be acts of bullying. She however appeared to find it difficult to answer other than to tell
me that the allegations were not true.
7.1.13. I did however find JD to be credible in that she believes what she told me. I did not see
evidence that she told me anything which she did not genuinely believe to be the case. She
is a senior and experienced HR professional who has held significant roles at large
Companies. She told me she worked hard, with long hours, and found the Company a
challenging environment due to the people there and the bureaucratic nature. She
17
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
seemed genuinely surprised by some of the allegations but at the same time did not
indicate that she accepted that she had crossed any line and that all faults lay with others.
7.1.14. She reported that she was simply seeking to fulfil her remit and had, at times, to take
firm management decisions accordingly which, whilst she perceived to be right for the
Company, colleagues may not like. If this were to be the case, then it would not be
supported as bullying behaviour, as explicitly set out in the DAW policy.
7.1.15. This then in turn suggests that there is evidence to support a proposition that JD’s
understanding and awareness of her impact and how she comes across is a fundamental
issue with what has taken place since she joined. I am not asked to make any
recommendations on this, and it will be for the Company to take into account in any
decision making and to consider whether any further action and/or support may be
required. I consider that this is relevant to consider against the definition of bullying in the
DAW as set out above.
7.1.16. A final observation is in relation to JD’s possible approach to following an agenda and/or
written documentation. Before interviewing her, she was keen to have the allegations set
out in writing before the meeting. This would not be my usual approach but I agreed in
consideration of her wellbeing. JD then, I believe, wrote the written response at Appendix
2. At interview she appeared to be very much guided by that written response and would
come back to it in responding to questions, which could lead to an impression that she was
either not listening, or understanding the questions I was asking, or found it difficult to
deviate from her written response in a manner akin to using a script. I make this
observation as I consider it is relevant in seeking to understand how issues may have
arisen, and in particular the meeting wit! As explained below JD
had a set agenda of what she wanted to discuss at that meeting.
7.1.17. The evidence would tend to support a proposition that JD was keen to cover that
agenda and in particular the point on feedback, regardless of how the meeting progressed.
Again, this may be seen by colleagues to contribute to a perception of not listening and
focussing on the points she wants to make.
Background to JD joining on 1 December 2022
§
4
TAL
7A
Sensitive - Whistleblower
18
LETS-0032629902
7.12
712)
POL00458392
POL00458392
.. Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
7.1.34
7.1.38
7.1.36
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
nf Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.2. Concerns raised by: =I and the Speak Up Reports: Bullying and
Harassment
7.2.1.JD’s behaviour is rude and aggre: Sensitive - Whistleblower
Summary
23
LETS-0032629902
7.2.1.1. This allegation is also relevant to the other headings and should be considered
as part of the context behind them as well.
7.2.1.2. The evidence suggests that members of the People Team found it difficult to get
to know JD when she joined and that they did not consider that she sought to build a
rapport with them. This in turn is perceived to have set the tone for relationships at
the outset which witnesses told me then became worse as time went on.
7.2.1.3. The evidence tends to show that JD was perceived to be
which in term was considered to be rude by certain colleagues. This is support et
evidence which would also tend to show that JD was direct and took a firm tone
when speaking to colleagues. The evidence supports the proposition that this could
make meetings awkward and perceived to be ‘hostile’ for some of the participants
involved.
7.2.1.4. The evidence does tend to show that JD was perceived tof Sensi
“but I have not been presented with clear evidence th:
7.2
Sensitive - Whistleblower
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.2.1.1)
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
This conclusion also takes into account the evidence, and conclusions, considered under the specific
further allegations below and in particular 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6.
However, the evidence needs to be considered in the wider context and the points of mitigation
identified when considering whether it meets the definition of bullying in the Company policies.
7.3.1.1 have been mindful at all times of the definition of bullying and expectations of staff under
the DAW and Code of Conduct as set out in section 6. The decision maker should also bear
these in mind.
25
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.3.4)
7.3.51
7.3.6,
7.3.7;
7.3.8)
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
However, the evidence also needs to be considered with the wider allegations, the wider context, and
the points of mitigation identified.
7.4. JD shouted at and/or raised her voice at staff
Summary
7.4.1.1 have been mindful at all times of the definition of bullying and expectations of staff under
the DAW and Code of Conduct as set out in section 6. The decision maker should also bear
these in mind.
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
TAT}
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower I
748}
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
However, the evidence needs to be considered with the wider allegations, the wider context and the
points of mitigation identified.
Summary
7.5.1
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
75.4
75.5
75.6
75.8
75.9
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
75.1
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.6. Belittling, berating and/or patronising
Summary
7.6.1.1 have been mindful at all times of the definition of bullying and expectations of staff under
the DAW and Code of Conduct as set out in section 6. The decision maker should also bear
these in mind.
7.6.2.These are words that have been used by!-— !and those who raised Speak Up reports.
‘Belittle’ is specific words included as an example of bullying behaviour in the DAW. I have
also considered the dictionary definitions.
7.6.2.1. Belittle means to make a person, or an action, seem as if it is not important.
7.6.2.2. Berate means to criticise or speak in an angry manner to someone.
7.6.2.3. Patronise means to speak, or behave towards someone, as if they are stupid or
not important.
30
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.6.4.It is important t
above, JD did raise her voice and could behave in a manner which was perceived by others
to be rude and aggressive. The evidence would tend to show that JD could become
frustrated with responses from people and could react in a way which made those
frustrations clear. This comes into play in these allegations as well as the evidence would
tend to show that this influences perceptions of being belittled and/or berated.
7.6.5)
Sensitive - Whistleblower
CONCLUSION: I believe that there is sufficient evidence to find that there is a case to answer in
relation to the allegation that JD belittled, berated, and patronised sta
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
31
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
However, the evidence needs to be considered with the wider allegations, the wider context and
evidence and the points of mitigation identified when considering whether it meets the definition of
bullying in the Company policies.
7.7. Micromanagement
Summary
7.7.1.1 have been mindful at all times of the definition of bullying and expectations of staff under
the DAW and Code of Conduct as set out in section 6. The decision maker should also bear
these in mind.
7.7.2
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower I
Budgets
32
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.7.73
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.7.8;
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.8.)
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower I
Summary — Recognition Platform
7.8.2!
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.8.3}
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.8.6.The evidence would tend to suggest that this was not a deliberate attempt to undermine
staff, but a decision taken for genuine management reasons but again without being able
to win the hearts and minds of those involved and impacted.
Summary - Culture Strategy/Leadership approach
7.8.8:
., sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.8.16
Summary
34
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower
3 Witnesses reported to me that the Company could be particularly
bureaucratic and this i is compounded by the fact it is Government owned and funded and
is is subject to a public inquiry with strict governance requirement ri
Sensitive - Whistleblower
35
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.9.6.1am not asked to make recommendations other than if there is a case to answer, and}--
no longer employed by the Company, and it is for the Company to decide what to do with
this information provided by JD.
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.9.8.The evidence would also support a propositi
Jane, as set out above, contributed to the perception that she found process to be a
blocker and it frustrated her. This could then have impacted on people’s perceptions on
how JD viewed compliance with process and the meaning, or interpretation of, what she
said and how she acted.
7.9.9.\t is again not my remit to make recommendations other than if there is a case to answer
and it is for the Company to consider how to approach overall governance of policy and
process compliance.
"Sensitive - Whistleblower
However, the evidence needs to be considered with the wider allegations, the wider context and
evidence and the points of mitigation identified
7.10. The content of the meeting between Jane Davies andi sersive
together with previous interactions between them, and whether either party exhibited
unacceptable behaviour during or leading up to this meeting.
Summary
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.10:
7.10.8. On balance, the evidence would tend to show that both parties may have behaved in
broadly similar way which had the impact of antagonising each other. The evidence would
tend to show that both parties had valid points to make but neither party appreciated the
manner in which they were presented.
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
37
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
vn Sensitive - Whistleblower I
Sensitive - Whistleblower
However, the evidence needs to be considered with the wider allegations, the wider context and
evidence and the points of mitigation identified.
711. The above are alleged to be a pattern of behaviour which has created and/or
contributed to a lack of trust in the working relationship between JD and staff. Further it has
created and/or contributed to a toxic working environment which has led to individuals
resigning and/or being absent and impacting on their health.
Summary
7.11.1. All the evidence, and conclusions, set out in this report should be considered in its
entirety in relation to this allegation.
WAL
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
71s
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
CONCLUSION: I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to find that there is a case to answer
that the above, taken overall, is a pattern of behaviour which has created a lack of trust in the
working relationship between JD and staff, or that it has created a toxic working environment which
has led to individuals resigning and/or being absent and impacting on their health.
There are however grounds to find that there is case to answer that the overall behaviours identified
above, when taken together, have contributed to a lack of trust between JD and!“ and JD and:
which has contributed to them resigning and/or being absent and impacting on their health.
However, the evidence needs to be considered with the wider allegations, the wider context and
evidence set out above and the points of mitigation identified.
Simon Stephen
Heminsley Law
30 May 2023
ANNEX — EVIDENCE
7.2. JD's
7.2.1.The evidence relating to the wider allegations, and 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6 in particular, is
repeated here.
“!said that
7.2.
something and you either email her or you text her and you'll just get a very short response
and then you know when you talk to her you'll be why were you like that, oh I’m sorry I was
doing this, that and the other, so that’s the sort of thing that’s my experience’.
39
LETS-0032629902
7.2.4;
7.2.6:
7.2.9
7.2.13
POL00458392
POL00458392
2s Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.2.15
7.21
72.44
7.2.44
7.2.14
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.2.20. RT said colleagues had come to him with concerns about JD’s behaviour towards others.
One member of his team, he says, told him that people were considering making a
‘whistleblowing complaint’ about JD and alleged bullying and sought his advice. He told me
he hadn’t experienced anything of that nature and counselled them to follow the Speak
Up process if they had their own concerns. He said that he was not, however, given any
specifics other than they ‘had been in meetings and potentially felt
uncomfortable....and...witnesses others who, so it was hearsay that people had been
shouted at or told to get out of a meetin
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.2. 28. ‘RT said ‘that she ‘has ‘however ‘softened’. “He said “and then m more ore recently, however, T —_
think she has softened a little bit, by which I mean it is less directive and that may just be as
a consequence of you know, the time in the business, realising that we are a complicated
business, a complex business, things are not straightforward’.
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.344
7. 3.1. The evidence relating to the wider allegations, and 7.2 and 7.6, is repeated here. ~
7.3.4
LETS-0032629902
73.4
44
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
45
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
a Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.4. JD shouted at and/or raised her voice at staff
7.4.1.The evidence relating to the wider allegations, and 7.2, 7.6 in particular, is repeated here.
Evidence - Shouting at!
7.4.2:
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
74.6
ey)
©
5
o
os
<
°)
I
=,
O
ot
©
oa
°
=
©
=
747
Evidence - Shouting ati!
*) Sensitive - Whistleblower.
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.4.1!
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.4.1)
“’ Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.41
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.4.24
7.5. 1D Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.5.1.The evidence set out above in relation to the events of; lis repeated here.
49
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.5.3)
7.5.41
7.5.6
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
75.8
75.9
7.6. Belittling, berating and/or patronising
7.6.1.The evidence relating to the wider allegations, and 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 in particular, is
repeated here.
Evidence- Treatment off Se
1) ae
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.6.4}
7.6.5)
7.6.6:
7.6.7;
7.6.8)
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.6.8
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
76.4
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.6.11
7.6.1:
"Sensitive - Whistleblower I
Evidence - JD’s Failure to Listen
54
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.6.11
7.6.1;
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.6.1
7.6.2
JD’s Evidence
7.6.25
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
76.4
764
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.6.4
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.6.4
7.6.4
7.6.4
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.6.4
56
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
“' Sensitive - Whistleblower
Treatment of ae in general
1
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.7. Micromanagement
Evidence: 1-1s
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.7.6:
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.7.8;
7.7.9)
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
774
Sensitive - Whistleblower :
7.7.4
59
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
Evidence- Recognition Platform
7.8.1; ;
7.8.2}
7.8.3}
Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.8.4)
7.8.5}
7.8.61
LETS-0032629902
7.8.4
7.8.4
7.8.4
7.8.4
7.8.4
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.9. JD breached, or spoke openly of an intention to breach, Post Office Limited processes
Evidence
62
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.9.2)
7.9.3)
7.9.41
7.9.5}
7.9.6:
7.9.7
Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
' Sensitive - Whistleblower.
7.9.9
7.9.4
JD’s evidence
7.9.1}
7.9.1)
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
7.9.4;
7.9.4,
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.9.4
7.9.1)
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.9.1)
Sensitive - Whistleblower
Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.10. The content of the meeting between Jane Davies a
[==] together with previous interactions between them, and
unacceptable behaviour during or leading up to this meeting.
66
LETS-0032629902
71
vidence re the meeting
7.10!
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.10:
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
"Sensitive - Whistleblower.
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.10.4
I Sensitive - Whistleblower I
7.10.)
7.10.4
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
a Sensitive - Whistleblower I
haviour in the run up to the meeting
7.10!
I Sensitive - Whistleblower :
7.10}
71
LETS-0032629902
7.10.)
POL00458392
POL00458392
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
72
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.11. The above are alleged to be a pattern of behaviour which has created and/or
contributed to a lack of trust in the working relationship between JD and staff. Further it has
created and/or contributed to a toxic working environment which has led to individuals
resigning and/or being absent and impacting on their health.
LETS-0032629902
7A
7A
711
POL00458392
POL00458392
Sensitive - Whistleblower I
LETS-0032629902
TAL
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
7.11
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
7.14
_ Sensitive - Whistleblower
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
I Sensitive - Whistleblower
TAL
LETS-0032629902
POL00458392
POL00458392
APPENDICES
78
LETS-0032629902
APPENDIX 1:
APPENDIX 2:
APPENDIX 3:
APPENDIX 4:
APPENDIX 5:
Terms of Reference
JD’s response to the Terms of Reference
Company Policies
Transcripts
Documents received from Company and witnesses
79
POL00458392
POL00458392
LETS-0032629902