ScotRail Employee’s Affair With Boss Caused Tension in the Workplace and Broke Down Working Relationships

In Paul Frame v Abellio ScotRail Limited, the court threw out the claim for compensation. Although a ScotRail employee’s affair with her boss resulted in a toxic workplace and caused a colleague significant emotional distress, the court found no evidence that this resulted from a breach of the company’s duties. Read on for an analysis of what transpired and the court’s judgment.

If you have any employment law questions or believe your rights have been breached, get in touch with Redmans Solicitors today. We have years of experience, enabling us to provide specialist advice. Following a quick chat, we can outline your possible next steps and guide you through the legal process if you’re eligible.

To get started:

The Facts in Paul Frame v Abellio ScotRail Limited

ScotRail Employee’s Affair Creates Toxic Workplace

Paul Frame (“The Pursuer”), an employee at Abellio ScotRail Limited (“The Defender”), was managed by Joe O’Neill. Mr O’Neill’s son was engaged to Lorraine McGorm, one of the pursuer’s colleagues. Unbeknownst to Mr O’Neill, Ms McGorm was having an affair with her boss, Mr O’Neill’s manager, John McBrinn.

Tensions arose when Mr O’Neill discovered the affair. The pursuer attempted to remain neutral but faced undue pressure during a meeting on 14 November 2017. Mr O’Neill was displeased with the pursuer’s desire to stay friends with Ms McGorm, creating a toxic workplace environment.

Two days later, the pursuer lodged a grievance against his manager. He alleged that Mr O’Neill had conflated the ScotRail employee’s affair with professional matters and had obstructed his career. Consequently, the pursuer commenced stress-related sick leave caused by the fracture of relationships at work.

Anxiety Grows with Grievance Mismanagement 

Mr McBrinn would typically handle the organisation’s grievances. However, due to his personal involvement in this matter, the responsibility was assigned to Phil Campbell, the head of revenues. 

Unfortunately, Mr Campbell made insufficient progress with the grievance investigation. He failed to effectively follow up on a meeting that occurred on 15 January 2018 or provide the pursuer with updates. By December 2018, the pursuer’s anxiety grew, worsened by the belief that Mr O’Neill considered the grievance resolved.

Throughout early 2019, the pursuer had multiple unproductive meetings with HR. Although there were offers of mediation and alternative roles, the pursuer insisted on resolving his initial grievance. By 1 August, he raised a second grievance regarding the defender’s failure to resolve his first.

Flaws Found in Investigation

Fleet Manager Alan Young was tasked with investigating how the pursuer’s original grievance had been handled. On 30 January 2020, Mr Young issued his final report, concluding that the grievance had been dealt with inadequately. However, while he recommended mediation, he saw no benefit in reinvestigating the original grievance.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the pursuer submitted a notice of appeal on 18 February. On 13 May, Dave Smith, the head of service and planning, issued his decision. Following his investigation, Mr Smith identified several faults in how the initial grievance had been handled and consequently ordered a full reinvestigation by an independent investigator.

As such, the matter was reinvestigated, but on 15 December, the pursuer was informed that his grievance hadn’t been upheld. He disagreed with the decision but viewed it as some form of closure. After appealing it, he also found this to be unsuccessful, leaving him with no further right to appeal.

At this point, the pursuer remained on sick leave and was distrustful of the defender’s policies. As a result, he initiated legal proceedings, seeking compensation against the defender.

The Court’s Judgment in the ScotRail Employee’s Affair Case

Once the court reviewed how the ScotRail employee’s affair and the subsequent inadequate grievance investigation had affected the pursuer, they delivered their judgment. Psychological assessments conducted in 2022 and 2024 diagnosed the pursuer with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Despite these diagnoses, the court found insufficient evidence linking the psychological injuries to any breaches of duty by the employer.

The court criticised the grievance handling process, highlighting Mr Campbell’s unsatisfactory investigation and Mr Allan’s closure of the original grievance, noting that these procedural failures caused the pursuer additional stress. However, the court determined that these failures did not foreseeably risk psychiatric injury. Consequently, the claims were dismissed, and the employer wasn’t held liable.

We hope you found this article concerning the ScotRail employee’s affair insightful. If you have any queries or think your employment rights have been violated, contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. As specialists in the sector, we can answer your questions and provide expert advice.

Receive a quick consultation from us now by: