In parts 1 and 2,² I:

- shared an article³ from The Guardian with the headline: "Senior staff can sue if given ‘low status’ desk, UK tribunal rules."; and
- suggested walking a mile in the employee's shoes.

In this part, I'll conclude with some practical takeaways for employers.⁴

--

1️⃣ Employees dislike being pushed from place to place.

I mean, big duh, right?

But something easily forgotten as organisations push for optimisation.

It may well be that the employer was legally entitled to bounce NW from branch to branch. But it was the act of shuffling him back and forth that precipitated the dispute - and a (likely expensive⁵) tribunal hearing.

Redesignations - whether in the form of relocations, departmental restructuring, title changes - can be a big deal to employees.

So employers treat their employees as fungible interchangeable cogs in the machine at their own peril.

2️⃣ Employees expect to be remunerated for their efforts.

Again, duh, right? After all, nobody works for free.

But there's a more nuanced point to be made here.

In this case, before being asked to move, NW had worked at branch R for 5 years. Insofar that branch R continued generating profits even after he left, NW probably felt that some credit was due to him, which was consistent with his pay including a commission component based on branch R's revenue.

How, then, do you think he felt when he received a letter setting out a new commission structure which did not take into account branch R?

I appreciate that companies are always concerned about the bottom-line, and that remuneration is often a difficult conversation.

But I suggest that if a company chooses to takes away a pay component which an employee (justifiably or unjustifiably) feels entitled to because of their past efforts...

...it should not be surprised if such a move engenders resentment.

3️⃣ Superiors probably shouldn't raise their voices and swear at employees.⁶

Again, big duh.

But again, I suggest a more nuanced point.

Is your organisation prepared to tolerate or even promote superiors who:
- are highly productive or profitable; but
- have a history of abusive behaviour towards their colleagues?

Because if the organisation is prepared to look the other way for such superiors...

...there may come a day where the organisation is forced to confront the consequences of such behaviour.

Is this a risk your organisation can afford to take?