Should have intervened: When managerial inaction becomes misconduct

December 11, 2025

Workplace culture is not only influenced by the voices that speak up, but also equally defined by the silence that managers and those in senior positions permit. For employers, the recent Tribunal decision in Bailey v Avon Fire & Resue Service serves as a reminder that senior managers and those in positions of authority can be held responsible for the behaviours they tolerate, overlook, or fail to address within their teams.

Background

Simon Bailey was employed by Avon Fire & Rescue Service as a Watch Manager. In his role, Bailey had line management responsibility and firefighters on his watch who reported to him. In 2023, Bailey resigned from his role after being issued with a final written warning resulting from the outcome of a disciplinary hearing and being moved from his operational duties.

His departure followed a grievance raised by a former firefighter, Sasha Acheson, which prompted an external investigation into the culture at the organisation. Acheson’s grievance raised multiple allegations of demeaning and offensive comments made about women in the workplace.

One of the core allegations put to Bailey as part of the investigation was that he failed to effectively perform his duties as Watch Manager by not challenging inappropriate, stereotypical and offensive comments when he witnessed them being made. It was also put to Bailey that in doing so, he was in breach of the Bullying and Harassment Policy, which stated that “every employee… has a responsibility to contribute to the elimination of bullying and harassment by… making it clear they find such behaviour unacceptable and by supporting any person who is a victim of such unwanted behaviour.”

In June 2023, Bailey was invited to a disciplinary hearing. The outcome of the hearing determined that Bailey was in breach of the Bullying and Harassment Policy by failing to challenge inappropriate behaviour. It also concluded that Bailey’s behaviours contravened the expected standards of the Values and Behaviour Framework, specifically around being respectful, inclusive and courageous.

Bailey was issued with a 12-month final written warning and was placed on a formal performance improvement plan. He was also moved from his operational post to an office-based Watch Manager role in Technical Services. Bailey chose not to appeal the decision. Shortly following this decision, Bailey went on sick leave and later wrote to his employer asserting that its conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. He resigned in September 2023 and lodged a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, concluding that Bailey had not been constructively unfairly dismissed.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that Bailey was aware that there was a culture of sexist behaviour within the organisation, and he had a responsibility as a senior leader to foster a respectful and inclusive workplace by addressing behaviour that was not inclusive or respectful. Further, the Tribunal concluded that Bailey failed to challenge misconduct, and his handling of the incidents involving Acheson breached the organisation’s values and behavioural expectations.

The Tribunal also determined that as the organisation decided not to dismiss Bailey, it was not inconsistent nor unreasonable to interlay a disciplinary sanction with performance focused actions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that imposing the sanction that it did on Bailey did not act in a way calculated to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence, and in fact were all deemed reasonable responses in the circumstances. As such, there was no repudiatory breach by the employer.

Lessons for employers
  1. Culture is a leadership responsibility – Employers can demand accountability from managers who fail to challenge discriminatory behaviour.
  2. Include clear expectations for management in policies – The Tribunal heavily relied on the fact that the Respondent’s policy required the Claimant to address unacceptable behaviour. Employers should ensure that their policies clearly spell out these responsibilities if they wish to rely on them.
  3. Act promptly and consistently when concerns are raised – The Respondent’s robust disciplinary investigations were key in successfully defending the claim.
How we can help

For further information or to discuss the issues raised within this case please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights