‘It ended my marriage’: the stress of a disciplinary hearing

Madeline* has been on paid sick leave for the past month, and has been signed off for another. She’s in the middle of her third disciplinary hearing in the past two years, related to her job as an engineer for an energy innovation company. She has been accused of not following protocol and aggressive behaviour towards colleagues. The ordeal has affected every part of her life. She’s been isolated from colleagues she used to get on well with and has lost enthusiasm for her engineering career. The stress and emotional impact escalated tension at home, fuelling a separation, and later, divorce proceedings between Madeline and her husband. She’s deliberately kept her work situation from her three adult children, who are already struggling with the divorce. For the first time in her life, she’s had to see a therapist. In total, she’s had to take over six months’ leave from work since the investigations began. Shorts “I’ve been treated very unfairly. Basically, I’ve been bullied. I’ve lost all trust in people and the whole experience has been very damaging. It’s been draining and stressful ever since the first meeting,” says Madeline. Workplace conflict, like the one Madeline has become embroiled in, reached its highest reported level last year: 44 per cent of UK workers experienced some form of dispute or disagreement at work, according to Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). UK employers undertake about 1.7 million disciplinary cases a year that cost employers £28.5 bn annually in time off, dismissals and resignations. In July, doctors called for poorly run disciplinary investigations to be recognised as a public health issue. The UK Faculty of Public Health said employers should start treating disciplinary investigations as a last resort. The recent case of Chloe Moffat, a personal assistant at the Treasury, who took her life after being subjected to disciplinary proceedings, has also raised questions about the process. The Treasury is bringing in new disciplinary procedures as a result of Moffat’s death. Employer vs employee From Madeline’s perspective, there were holes in the disciplinary process from the beginning – and two of the completed investigations concluded that no further action was required. She says the allegations against her have been unclear, and the questions put to her in the meetings have been deliberately vague, relying on her to say what had happened. This was after a manager she had been disagreeing with over the quality of the work they were completing, and protocols for reviewing that work, first opened an investigation against her in 2024. She’d been at the company for two years. The two month investigation, which included three weeks of paid stress leave, ended with an email that confirmed the concerns Madeline had raised about the quality of work and review process were valid. She was cleared, but also told not to challenge her manager again. Several months later, another disciplinary case was opened against her, after she made an offhand negative comment in the pub after work about the manager who had accused her. This was also reported to HR, and escalated from an investigation about the comment, to a breach of confidentiality. As a result of that conversation in the pub, Madeline was deemed to have discussed that first case. This resulted in another three weeks of stress leave – and another outcome where no further action was required. Chloe Moffat, a 26-year-old Treasury worker, took her own life one day after an anonymous complaint was made about her, a recent inquest has heard (Photo: Facebook) She was offered a paid settlement to leave the company, which she refused, as she didn’t want being unemployed to delay or change the outcome of her divorce proceedings. A third disciplinary investigation against her, around allegations of misconduct, is still ongoing. She says this has taken isolated incidents where she has expressed frustration in the office completely out of context. “There is a reason that investigations and disciplinary action exist, to deal with people for issues like theft, or corruption, but I feel in my case, it’s being used as excuses to cause me harm, and get rid of me,” says Madeline. “They want me to leave, so they’re making my life as difficult as possible.” Shifting the power imbalance In her 10 years as a HR professional, Jessica Dunne has overseen around 30 disciplinary hearings. She now runs her own consultancy, WorkRight HR, and posts on Instagram as @itsjessfromhr. Dunne says the impact on employees at the centre of disciplinary proceedings can be significant. With easy access to HR and legal advice, employers can have the upper hand on employees, creating a power imbalance, she says. “There is a need for more support and resources for employees,” she says. Managers too need support, Dunne argues, to more effectively address issues as they arise, rather than letting them get worse. This would avoid unnecessary disciplinary action – as sometimes, a conversation could have resolved things. “The process needs to improve in terms of people being able to challenge and have difficult conversations before something turns into a conduct issue. I’ve had cases in the past where you’ve had an employee say things that are a bit out of turn – nothing too bad, but still, probably crossing a few boundaries from a professional setting,” she explains. “But rather than the manager challenging them at that point, they’ve just left it because they don’t want to have that difficult conversation. Then the person thinks that their behaviour is acceptable, and it continues. Had they been challenged at the very beginning of this poor conduct, then maybe they wouldn’t have allowed it to get worse over time.” She adds: “Managers and individuals should have the confidence and the resources to be able to challenge minor matters of misconduct before there’s a real need for disciplinary action.” Matthew Simon has overseen a number of disciplinary proceedings since he started managing people in 2010, including that of a non-profit CEO who was not fulfilling regulatory requirements. The investigation took a month. The CEO was found at fault, and dismissed. Simon says managers often jump ahead to disciplinary proceedings to avoid awkward conversations they don’t want to have. “People trip up when they treat the disciplinary process as the first thing to do when there is a problem. A disciplinary process is for when you have a chronic performance or conduct problem. If somebody is merely behaving in a way that you don’t like, or not performing in the way that you’d like, that is not necessarily a reason to start a disciplinary investigation,” says Simon, who is now a technology transformation consultant. “People think that it’s kind to keep everything under the rug and continue smiling at each other. But actually, if you are not telling somebody about problems that you will then later spring on them as a disciplinary, you are not doing them any favours.” “Work always used to be a safe place for me” Back in the Midlands, Madeline remains in limbo, personally and professionally. Her divorce being finalised is the light at the end of the tunnel. She’s fallen out of love with engineering, but doesn’t know what to do next. “Work always used to be a very safe place for me. I knew what I was doing and I always felt that I made a good contribution. Now I feel like engineering has just turned into pushing paper,” Madeline reflects. “The kids are leaving home, so they don’t need me. There are lots of places where I feel like I’m not needed anymore.” But she still has some optimism about her future: “I have a lot of friends from uni who are changing their careers now that their kids have grown up and they don’t need to prove anything any more. That’s something for me to consider.” *name has been changed to protect her identity