Workplace Pronouns revisited: when resistance goes too far
Posted on 29th August 2024 at 16:24
A local authority employee took exception to an invitation from the council’s chief executive to “consider adding pronouns to your email signature, should you wish to do so”. He added “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” to his. He was dismissed. The media headline, reporting on the failure of his claims, ran “‘Gender-critical’ council worker sacked after protest over pronouns on email signature”. The article, however, noted the tribunal’s acceptance of his “gender-critical” beliefs as a protected philosophical belief. How do we reconcile this?
Very easily, in fact. The reason for dismissal in Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council was misconduct, founded upon insubordination, specifically his refusal to comply with an instruction that could be paraphrased as “you’ve made your point – drop it”. The point in question, which he confirmed via his witness statement, was “it is my firm belief that announcing pronouns in emails or before meetings is a political gesture designed to intimidate anyone who does not embrace the contested ideology of gender identity”. He described his mockery of the invitation as “critical compliance”, and asserted that simply not adding a pronoun would be “accepting this garbage”.
After four instructions, three written, to remove the email footer, Mr Orwin was suspended. A prolonged investigation led to a disciplinary hearing 3 months later. Mr Orwin held his ground, declining to remove the footer or to compromise. His subsequent summary dismissal also cited breakdown of trust and confidence, in the evident knowledge that Mr Orwin would not comply with the instruction if the only sanction was a written warning. His appeal having failed, Mr Orwin was destined for his day in the tribunal, in fact three days.
Not surprisingly, the main question for the tribunal was whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. In the face of the sustained insubordination, it did. The managers honestly believed that there had been misconduct, had reasonable grounds for their belief, the investigation was sufficient, and the procedure was fair.
Mr Orwin’s “gender-critical” beliefs were found to be fixed; related to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life; internally cogent and consistent; and worthy of respect in a democratic society. However, his dismissal and treatment were found to have involved no element of philosophical belief discrimination. His mocking protest was the key factor, all the more so when he could have exercised a grievance or complained as a council taxpayer, and could have backed down after making a very clear and unequivocal point.
Do you need any guidance over a pronouns dispute, from either side of the desk? Or advice on whether a new policy strikes the right balance? Get in touch. Contact David Cooper on 0121 325 5402 or via dmc@coxcooper.co.uk .
Tagged as: disciplinary hearing, gender critical beliefs, honest belief, insubordination, misconduct, protected philosophical belief, reasonable grounds, sufficient investigation, summary dismissal, Suspension
Share this post: