On this page:

My partner hadn't ever experienced bullying before working at Sephora Highpoint, Melbourne.

Bullying can happen at any workplace. How it's handled tells us a lot about an employer. In Liam's case, it was handled so badly that he ultimately had to resign.

Liam was thrilled at his new role at Sephora. Just a short distance from home, it was both convenient and exciting to start a new role with a brand he loved and had worked for before.

Simone, a manager at the store, begun bullying Liam in 2019. Liam got on well with everyone at the store and wasn't used to negative treatment from colleagues, so was taken aback when Simone subjected Liam to:

micromanaging,

monitoring him on video surveillance throughout his shifts,

repeatedly giving him humiliating and pointless tasks to do,

hovering around him without reason,

publicly scalding him in front of others, and

giving him 'serious' warnings for unfounded or trivial reasons.

The complaint

Liam endured the bullying for some time before finally calling his manager, Rachel, to inform her of what had been happening.

Rachel told Liam that she had a 'crazy' friend, James, who always felt that wherever he went, he always felt like everyone was unkind to him. She explained that Liam reminded her of James, and that he should keep quiet and just put up with whatever was happening, even if it was unfair. She also told Liam to look up the definition of 'bullying' and to not use that term again.

I was present when this call took place and was concerned at what I had heard, so I advised Liam to consider lodging a more formal complaint.

When Liam lodged his formal complaint, Sephora HR was brought in to assist with investigating and resolving the complaint.

Initially this looked promising, but the process unravelled quickly and became a major ordeal.

First Liam was told that he was not allowed to attend his rostered shifts because this would be stressful for the manager who was the subject of his complaint who was, according to Liam's manager, concerned she'd put a foot wrong in Liam's eyes. He was told that if he wanted to work, he'd have to carry out his shift at another store which was around 20x his usual commute. Liam hadn't worked at this store before and had in fact turned down a job previously at that store due to the long commute.

Liam was then told that if he wanted to return to his workplace, he'd need to quickly decide how he wanted his complaint to be handled (either formally or informally).

Liam advised that he'd like an acknowledgement and apology, and for no further bullying to occur, but wasn't sure if this fitted more with a formal or informal process.

The stolen entitlements

Liam was allowed to return to work after several days, and then had his absence docked from his personal leave entitlements. Liam disputed this deduction, presenting complete evidence as to why this deduction was incorrect and unfair, without success.

Without addressing the evidence, Sephora HR officer, Erica, decided that the deduction was fair and that was that.

Essentially Liam had his entitlements stolen for raising a complaint of bullying.

The leak

While the matter was ongoing, Erica advised Liam that he should make a new complaint against his manager for the handling of his first verbal complaint (where she had compared Liam to her 'crazy' friend and dismissed his complaint).

Some further discussion took place on this through email between myself (Liam had asked me to act on his behalf) and Erica, with Liam declining the suggestion to raise a complaint against his direct manager on the grounds that Liam knew it would harm their relationship.

One evening, Erica wrote to Liam and his manager, Rachel, to advise that I would no longer be involved in discussions, and that from then on emails were to include Liam, Rachel and Erica only.

In this discussion Erica made reference to the previous email chain between her and myself. Rachel stated that she hadn't seen it and asked Liam to forward it to her. Liam replied explaining that it was private and confidential, however, Erica sent it to Rachel, without Liam's permission.

This highly sensitive email included private discussions between myself and Erica. It included records of contact between Liam and his manager, Rachel, and discussions about Rachel's behaviour.

A short time later, after seeing Liam's response that the email could not be shared, Erica asked Rachel to not read the email and to delete it.

Erica then removed Rachel from the email thread and sent Liam emails throughout the night and into the next morning which included strange anecdotes and contradictory advice.

The resignation

The morning after the email leak, Liam submitted his resignation, citing the privacy breach, the complaint and its handling as reasons he was unable to continue in his role.

This move was heartbreaking for Liam, but he knew he could not remain in his position with his manager now likely to be extremely hostile towards him.

Liam gave 4 weeks notice, as per his contract.

The warnings

These matters had caused untold stress and frustration for Liam. One afternoon during his notice period, he felt stressed and worried and left work around an hour early, advising a manager that he'd left sick.

That day the managers in the store had held a forum with staff advising them that now was the time to speak up if they were having problems. Liam took this advice literally and explained to the group that he'd had his personal leave stolen, and that speaking up had not helped.

Straight away his manager, Rachel, begun trying to contact Liam. She sent him a message advising that she needed to speak to him ASAP about his behaviour.

I picked Liam up from work and within 15 minutes we were home. His manager called him, but I took the call as Liam was in tears.

Rachel demanded to speak with Liam, but I informed her that he was unable to speak due to his emotional state.

Rachel suggested that Liam should be man enough to take a call from his manager, and that he was behaving extremely unprofessionally.

Rachel threatened that Liam would receive 3 official warnings the following day for serious breaches of his contract (one serious breach is enough to be sacked) for:

swearing in the hearing of colleagues,

leaving the store early without notifying a manger,

sharing information about his complaint with a former Sephora staffer.

The first warning alleged that Liam swore when he spoke up in the forum that day about the theft of his leave entitlements. Rachel stated that she had received 'more than 6' written statements confirming the incident had taken place. This number later changed to three, and then two - none of which were ever produced.

The third warning was related to a recent matter where a former Sephora staffer had asked Liam why he was leaving, and he had told her that he didn't like the place. Rachel had previously told Liam that he would not receive an official warning for this, but had now changed her mind.

The meeting

Rachel told me that she would meet with Liam on the morning of his next shift to officially hand him the warnings. I requested that I attend as Liam's support person, to which she agreed.

Overnight Rachel sent Liam an email setting out the meeting time and a notice that he'd receive two warnings (down from three, earlier).

During the meeting, Rachel stated that Liam would receive four warnings (up from two the night before, and three before that), with a new one added for 'failing to speak with his manager.'

Rachel also had a support person present, Catherine, a senior manager at the store. Catherine set out the rules for support people (herself, and myself), that we are to be silent, not ask questions, and provide emotional support only.

Catherine claimed to be one of the people that had reported Liam to Rachel for swearing in the hearing of colleagues, and apparently did not see a conflict of interest with that in her role as a support person to Rachel (a conflict of interest that would normally preclude her from being a support person in such a meeting).

I transcribed the meeting and Catherine, in her role as a 'silent' support person, spoke more than any other person present at the meeting.

During the meeting, Liam and myself were forbidden from discussing any events relating to his complaint, and were allowed only to discuss the four warnings he had received.

Liam cried in this meeting due to the enormous pressure and confrontation. A support person may speak on behalf of someone if that person is unable to (such as if they're crying), but I was repeatedly blocked from speaking by Rachel and Catherine.

During this meeting, a number of peculiarities emerged:

Rachel was issuing Liam a formal warning for failing to speak with her about his behaviour the day before. Rachel, when asked why she did not allow Liam to nominate a support person for that discussion (as is required), then denied the discussion was to be about his behaviour. Her message included the words "I need to speak to you about your behaviour today, call me back ASAP." She denied that this meant she wanted to speak to Liam about his behaviour.

Rachel had claimed the day before that she had received "more than six" written accounts from colleagues that had witnessed Liam swearing in front of his colleagues. In the meeting, this number changed to three, and then when Liam advised Rachel that one of the people she claimed had heard it wasn't present, the number changed to two. Liam denied the claim, and Rachel did not produce any evidence of the written reports. Staff present have confirmed that they did not hear Liam swear.

Rachel denied that she had said "more than six" the day before in reference to the number of written reports she had received about Liam swearing.

Rachel had asked to be placed on speaker during the phone call where she had said "more than six" and several people heard the call who all offered to provide a statement confirming what they'd heard.

Rachel and Catherine advised that only Sephora staff could be witnesses in any Sephora-related matters.

Rachel and Catherine then cited the ex-employee who they claim had reported Liam for saying that he "did not like the place" when asked about why he was resigning.

Rachel and Catherine were reminded that they'd said only "Sephora staff" could be witnesses in any Sephora-related matters.

Rachel and Catherine, who referred to the ex-staffer as an ex-employee in their official warnings, then changed their story that this person was now a current employee so she could be used as a witness.

An official warning for leaving the store early stated that Liam had not advised a manager, however, Liam had advised a manager but that manager had not communicated it to other managers.

Liam's direct manager had alleged the day before on the phone call to me that Liam had 'stormed in' to the managers' office before he left the store the previous day.

When pressed on the 'stormed in' allegation, it was revealed by Catherine that Liam had knocked on the door, waited for it to be opened, and then 'started a conversation,' vastly at odds with the previous claim by Liam's direct manager that he had 'stormed in.'

As the meeting progressed, all four official warnings were found to be fraught with errors, and Rachel and Catherine agreed to rewrite them, but requested Liam sign them on the spot before they rewrite them later. I advised Liam that it was against his interests to sign anything that isn't finalised, and that he could reject the warnings if he wanted to, which he did.

During the meeting, Rachel, Liam's direct manager, advised Liam that she was recommending to senior management that his employment is terminated (despite Liam having resigned almost two weeks earlier).

It is likely that had Liam accepted the four warnings, all of which were baseless, erroneous and unreasonable, he would have been terminated without entitlements.

Shortly after the meeting, I emailed Rachel and Catherine my 15 page transcript of the meeting which contained all of the inconsistencies and peculiarities that had emerged during the meeting. A short time later Liam was released from his notice period with full entitlements and no official warnings.

What I learned

During the entire process, Liam insisted that parties communicate in writing. This may have been frustrating for Rachel and Erica (from HR), who often insisted that communication should be verbal, not written, but it allowed all parties to keep thorough records.

I've written about the handling of the process and what I've learned in Handling conflicts.

Note: Names have been changed for privacy.