Blood on the carpet

The pressure of the public sector can mean even the stellar can become Estelles. Does the law help? Our CEO finds out from the senior partner of her law firm …

Chief executive: I need a good, cheap, employment lawyer.

Senior partner: Are you dissatisfied with …

CE: For me, stupid – you can't act for me. I've had enough. I want out with a platinum handshake.

SP: I know it's hard work, but …

CE: I don't think you people in the private sector understand how hard it is – not just for chief executives but for all senior management team members. The hours we work, the evening meetings …

SP: The European Union Working Hours Directive should protect you there – I know that you and your senior management team have waived their rights, but the board nonetheless has a duty to see that that waiver does not mean that you're open all hours.

CE: Catch-22 – no waive no surf. Sure, there are time-servers in the sector, but most senior teams really care about social housing and put in the hours. Most of us could earn twice as much in the private sector with half the hassle.

SP: Again, it is the duty of the board as employer to take all necessary steps to prevent your being exposed to unacceptable stress levels. If they don't, it can lead to a claim for constructive dismissal, where the employee couldn't reasonably be expected to take it any more, or breach of the duty of loyalty of an employer to an employee or actual breach of the employment contract terms. Why do you feel under threat?

CE: Board micromanagement, for a start. There are times when management team members feel a board meeting is a walk through death valley. Half the board want to rewrite government housing policy and the other half want to choose the bath taps.

There are times when management team members feel a board meeting is a walk through death valley

SP: You have a job specification – insist they observe it.

CE: I wish it were that simple. It's really the external things that undermine board confidence – the housing ombudsman's decision – "fair in all the circumstances". Fair to whom? Should registered social landlords, owing duties to other tenants, have to go beyond their legal or contractual duties for the benefit of a particular tenant or applicant at the expense of other tenants?

SP: Charitable bodies needn't. Probably often shouldn't, given their duties to preserve their assets, but oddly it cuts both ways – the ombudsman can decide that a tenant should not insist on their legal rights – though I doubt if that would stand Human Rights Act scrutiny. We are seeing some lawyers using the threat of the ombudsman to negotiate compensation. There is a feeling in the sector that it's all too easy for the complainant to get an award. Usually boards don't take these determinations very seriously because of that.

CE: Talking of easy, anyone can write anonymously to the corporation accusing me or my team of whatever they like. Then it's straight into an investigation, secret meetings, staff being questioned and thinking the worst …

SP: Sometimes it's the failure to ensure the whistleblower procedures are working properly that means things get that far, but often an internal investigation is all that is needed. Also, as an employee, you have rights. There are disciplinary procedures and, in dishonesty allegations, rights to be represented against self-incrimination, proper process.

CE: Anyway, back to my payout.

SP: Sadly, you're employed by an RSL so Schedule One applies. You get what your contract says you get, or reasonable compensation, effectively capped at a year's pay. Industry standard now seems to be six months' notice and one year's pay. Time to renegotiate your contract?

CE: Great – I'm responsible for nine-figure assets with an eight-figure turnover and surplus, so my handshake is tiny – I have to hang on.