The Guardian has reported that "Senior staff can sue if given ‘low status’ desk, UK tribunal rules".¹

I must confess that when I first read this headline, the tribunal decision didn't quite sit² right with me. My instinctive reaction was that the employee was, well, throwing an unnecessary tantrum. I mean, it's just a desk - what's the big deal?

Plus, if he's an estate agent, shouldn't he be out there pounding the ground - attending viewings, meeting clients, conducting site recces, the list goes on? And if so, does his desk location really matter?

And before you call me a hypocrite:
a) at my previous firm, partners had pods,³ not rooms. Which were shared; and
b) I now work out of a shared cubicle.⁴ Which, admittedly, is right next to a window. And that's nice! But it's hardly a corner office.⁵

--

So from my biased viewpoint, this whole thing sounded like a mountain was being made out of a molehill.

And my impression was exacerbated when I read the article.

Article: "Allocating a senior employee a desk that they believe to be associated with a junior position amounts to a breach of workplace laws, an employment tribunal has ruled."

Inner monologue: "they believe"? So if someone joins a company and believes that they deserve a huge office with an ensuite washroom, but they are temporarily allocated a cubicle, does this mean they can sue?

Article: "The ruling came in the case of a senior estate agent who resigned because he wanted to sit at a “symbolically significant” desk."

Inner monologue: "symbolically significant"? Geez, grow up.

Article: "When his boss heard about the 53-year-old’s resistance to the desk allocation, he said he could not believe “a man of his age” was “making a fuss” about a desk."

Inner monologue: hear, hear.

--

So I was about to go my merry way.

Then I decided, hey, might as well read the actual tribunal decision.⁶

So I did.

And, well, it turns out that it's not quite so simple.

And I say so because...

...well, you'll have to wait for part 2 to find out.⁷