Royal Mail should pay employee £100,000 after it ‘destroyed’ her life, judge says

Royal Mail has been accused by a judge of ‘destroying’ a female employee’s life after she was the victim of a lengthy bullying campaign for blowing the whistle on potential fraud.

In an extraordinary judgement, the postal service was told that if it had a ‘shred of decency’ it would pay Kam Jhuti more than £100,000 in damages ‘swiftly’ given the ‘catastrophic’ impact its treatment had had on her.

The media specialist had been intimidated and harassed by her boss, Mike Widmer, after she raised concerns that a colleague had secured their bonus illegitimately.

The ‘profound’ and ‘visceral’ effect of this bullying — which ended in her being sacked — left her suffering from severe depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), an employment tribunal heard.

Only a final resolution to her seven year case — which at one point went all the way to the Supreme Court — could offer hope of a recovery, it concluded.

Employment Judge Richard Baty said: ‘Whilst as a rule we try to avoid language which might be deemed intemperate, it is nonetheless true to say that [Royal Mail’s] treatment of [Ms Jhuti] has destroyed [her] life.

‘Furthermore, all of the medical professionals are clear that the resolution of these employment tribunal proceedings is necessary as a prerequisite to Ms Jhuti beginning to make any sort of recovery.

‘If [Royal Mail Group] has any shred of decency in the light of the catastrophic impact on the claimant of its treatment of her, it will ensure that this process is swiftly completed.’

The 2019 Supreme Court hearing was told Ms Jhuti started work as a £50,000 a year media specialist in Royal Mail’s MarketReach unit in London in September 2013.

However, the following month, while shadowing a colleague, she began to suspect they were not following Ofcom’s guidance and also breaching the company’s policy in relation to bonuses known as Tailor-Made Incentives (TMIs).

She said this helped the colleague to hit performance targets — directly securing a bonus for herself, indirectly securing Mr Widmer’s and ‘in effect defrauding the company’.

In November, she emailed Mr Widmer ‘reporting her concerns’, to which he sent a ‘sinister’ email to his boss, stating that she ‘needs to provide evidence’ of the accusations and ‘has to be aware she is making quite strong and serious allegations’.

On 13 November, Mr Widmer had a meeting with Ms Jhuti which lasted four hours — saying that if the accusations were untrue it would ‘impact’ on her job.

He asked her ‘at length’ about the company’s TMI policy and said her understanding was ‘questionable’.

The court heard Ms Jhuti ‘realised’ that if she were to pursue the issue, her job would be put ‘at risk’.

The hearing was told that when the meeting resumed, Ms Jhuti subsequently ‘apologised repeatedly’ — and agreed to Mr Widmer’s suggestion she should email him, admitting she had ‘made a mistake’ and retract the allegations.

Royal Mail was reprimanded for the ‘high-handed, malicious, insulting and oppressive’ way it had conducted the case. File image

She was then given a two hour ‘dress down’ and told she was falling short of the requirements of her role.

The court heard this prompted Mr Widmer to set up ‘intensive’ weekly meetings with her — something that was ‘unmatched’ for other members of his team.

By December, he was ‘repeatedly’ telling Ms Jhuti her progress was disappointing and emailed HR saying he was going to ‘compile examples’ to show she was not ‘meeting expected standards’.

Later that month, a TMI expert in the business vindicated Ms Jhuti’s previous allegations, by acknowledging media specialists were offering TMIs ‘inappropriately’.

The court heard that while Mr Widmer was ill over Christmas her replacement boss had been ‘happy’ with her progress.

However, Mr Widmer returned to work in January 2014 to resume his ‘ lengthy campaign’.

By this point Ms Jhuti was suffering with alopecia, which she believed was stress related, and was unsure what Mr Widmer expected of her.

In February she was placed on a six-week performance improvement plan and told if she did not comply she would fail her trial period.

One of the ‘objectives’ within the plan was for her to share ‘key client contacts’ in the travel industry — all of which she had made in previous jobs.

Ms Jhuti subsequently emailed HR expressing ‘concern’ at her boss’ conduct towards her — alleging it was because of her previous whistleblowing which she had been ‘forced to rescind’.

She believed this demand for her contacts was not one she could ‘lawfully comply with’ and highlighted an ‘agenda to dismiss her’ if she didn’t comply.

In the subsequent meeting Ms Jhuti was told Mr Widmer was a ‘respected employee’ and that ‘he would be the one to be believed’.

After the interview, Ms Jhuti emailed: ‘It is clear I am being managed to be removed, all on the basis of [Mr Widmer] holding what I believe is a grudge from the day I raised an issue.

‘If you want me out, all based on the initial issue I raised, then just tell me to go.’

At the end of the month, Ms Jhuti’s request for a new line manager was granted — but she was told again she ‘was not making the progress’ that was expected — although her new boss ‘admitted’ Mr Widmer’s length of meetings had been ‘excessive’.

On 12 March 2014, Ms Jhuti’s GP signed her off with work-related stress, anxiety and depression.

She never returned to work.

Earlier in March, Ms Jhuti had been offered three months pay to ‘voluntarily’ terminate her employment.

After she went off sick, the offer was increased to a year’s salary — which the tribunal described as ‘extremely strange’ given its ‘ostensible generosity’.

On 21 July 2014, Ms Jhuti was dismissed with three months notice — with effect from October 21.

In September 2014, she appealed the decision, and almost a year later, in August 2015, the appeal was dismissed.

After taking Royal Mail to an initial employment tribunal in 2015, Ms Jhuti’s claims of unfair dismissal ‘finally’ succeeded after the Supreme Court ruled in her favour.

Judge Baty said: ‘The impact of the campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment by Mr Widmer in this case has undoubtedly been profound.

‘We refer again to Ms Jhuti’s own evidence and cross examination about the severe triggering effect of even having to think about Mr Widmer and the visceral impact that having to do so had upon her.’

The panel agreed that as part of the award Royal Mail should pay £12,500 in aggravated damages for the way it had conducted the remedy hearing, in particular the ‘painful’ cross examination of Ms Jhuti.

‘We…have little hesitation in concluding that this conduct was high-handed, malicious, insulting and oppressive,’ the judge said.