Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

Should unfair dismissals be classed as a public health issue?

The death of 26-year-old Chloe Moffat has raised questions about duty of care in the workplace, and the right to safeguards during meetings. 

Losing your job or facing disciplinary action in the workplace is a traumatic experience for anyone – especially when it comes as a surprise. But the death of Chloe Moffat has prompted a wider examination of how British employers handle allegations of misconduct, and whether disciplinary procedures can themselves become a source of harm.

Moffat, 26, worked as a personal assistant at the Treasury for almost three years. She had an exemplary employment record, was in line for promotion and had been awarded a bonus for good work. She was called to an unexpected meeting with her line manager and a senior manager after an anonymous complaint alleged that she had shared confidential information about colleagues.

Chloe had not been told beforehand what the meeting was about or that the senior manager would attend. She was told that her access to her director’s diary and email would be temporarily removed, and when she asked whether she would lose her job, she was told that no outcome could be predicted.

According to the report, Chloe also asked several times if her best friend at work could join her, but the request was refused because senior management felt it would have been ‘inappropriate’. When asked why Chloe hadn’t been given notice of the allegations so that she could prepare for the meeting, her manager said this could have caused unnecessary stress.

Despite being told the meeting would be ‘informal’, Chloe immediately had her workplace responsibilities changed, and was given no support or indication of her future at the Treasury. This, despite Chloe asking several times during and following the meeting. The morning after the incident, Chloe died by suicide.

Following a month long inquest, the coroner, Anna Crawford, has now found that the Treasury ‘materially contributed’ to Chloe’s death. The shock and distress of the allegations, together with Chloe’s belief that she was going to lose her job, were all deemed to have impacted her state of mind at the time of her death.

Crawford also found that Chloe had been denied safeguards contained in the Treasury’s own disciplinary policy, including advance notice, the right to be accompanied and information about the likely outcome of the allegations.

Despite the response from senior management, who stated at the inquest they were simply following procedure and would not have changed their approach given the information and guardrails available to them, Chloe’s family have called for a review of workplace dismissal and disciplinary process.

‘She was treated with a complete lack of empathy with regard to allegations made by colleagues who chose to remain anonymous,’ said Chloe’s mother Anne Moffat. ‘We continue to believe that HM Treasure failed in its duty of care towards Chloe. At a time when she needed support, reassurance and fair treatment, she was left frightened, isolated and convinced that her career and reputation had been destroyed.’

The coroner found that Chloe ‘appeared well and happy’ before the meeting on 19 May last year and that there were no previous concerns about her mental health.

‘Chloe was a bright, caring and talented young woman who loved her family, her friends and her work,’ added her mother Anne. ‘The evidence heard during this inquest has reinforced our belief that the allegations made against Chloe were nothing more than workplace gossip.’

The case has raised questions around duty of care in the workplace, and whether unfair dismissal should be considered a public health issue.

According to the Faculty of Public Health (FPH), poorly conducted workplace investigations cause such harm that they should be seen as a threat to public health just as much as smoking or a bad diet.

Dismissals resulting from formal procedures and productivity lost through employee resignations also cost businesses in the UK around £28.5bn a year. The FPH has called on policymakers and employers to recognise how disciplinaries can be a detriment to both workforce wellbeing and wider business stability.

An employee confronted with a serious allegation may not know what evidence exists, how likely dismissal is or what rights they have. In Chloe’s case, the court heard that she was not told that a written warning was considered the likely outcome. A senior HR business partner said that giving her this information at the time would have been ‘unhelpful’.

The corporate language used in workplace investigations can also make these processes difficult to understand and ultimately dehumanise them – despite their handling of such sensitive situations. Terms like ‘informal meeting’, ‘fact-finding’ and ‘pastoral support’ can describe legitimate attempts to handle problems proportionately. But they can also leave employees unclear about the seriousness of what is happening.

Procedural justice research suggests that people are more likely to accept difficult outcomes when they understand what is happening, have an opportunity to respond, are treated with dignity and believe that the process is fair.

Chloe’s experience also raises questions about the support available to employees. Her line manager, who was involved in the disciplinary process, was assigned as her ‘pastoral care’. She was also told not to speak to friends about the allegations.

There are legitimate reasons for employers to protect confidentiality during an investigation. But employees still need somewhere to turn when they are frightened or confused about what is happening. A person involved in the investigation may not be able to provide that support independently.

Chloe’s mother said at the inquest: ‘The risks must be recognised so no other family will experience a loss like this.’ For employers, that means looking beyond whether a procedure complies with policy. The way an investigation is conducted can shape the experience as significantly as the eventual outcome.

Enjoyed this? Click here for more Gen Z focused change stories.

Accessibility