← Back to case studies
Case law
Agyeman v Avicenna Retail Ltd

Being called “a bully” by staff is not proof that you bullied them, your employer still has to find out what they mean.

The ruling

Unfair dismissal upheld; conduct did not amount to bullying; compensation reduced 25% for contributory conduct.”

An accusation of "bullying" has to be backed by specific examples your employer actually investigates, not just a label staff have used.

  • If you are accused of bullying, ask whether the complainants were asked for specific examples of what they meant, and request that detail yourself.
  • You are entitled to precise particulars of what you are accused of before a disciplinary hearing, not a vague invitation to discuss "some of the allegations."
  • Contributing to a difficult atmosphere at work is not the same as bullying. A tribunal can find your conduct played a part without finding you bullied anyone, and that distinction affects both the fairness of any dismissal and any reduction to compensation.
Read the full case

The situation

After 19 years with the company, a pharmacy manager was suspended when, during a visit by a regional manager, staff spontaneously said "everything was wrong," called him "a bully," and said people were leaving because of him. Witness statements described him testing new starters' maths and chemistry knowledge in front of colleagues, being rude to sales representatives, and contributing to a poor atmosphere in the pharmacy, which some staff put down as much to being short-staffed as to his management style. He was summarily dismissed for bullying, and his appeal was rejected.

What the tribunal found

The tribunal found the dismissal both substantively and procedurally unfair. The process that followed his suspension was, in substance, never a proper investigation. Staff who had used the word "bully" were never asked what they meant by it, or for specific examples. At his disciplinary hearing, he was simply asked to talk through "some of the allegations" without ever being given precise details to respond to. On the substance, the tribunal held the employer had no reasonable basis for concluding he had actually bullied anyone: at most, it could reasonably have found he had poor management and customer-handling skills that needed addressing, not that his conduct amounted to bullying. The tribunal found the real cause of the poor atmosphere was a mix of short-staffing and his "robust management style," and that the most a reasonable employer could have done was issue a final written warning alongside coaching or mediation, not dismiss him. It did find, though, that his conduct had contributed to the bad atmosphere, and reduced both his basic and compensatory awards by 25% for that contributory conduct.

Our case study on Caroline v ICTS (UK) Ltd looks at the same theme from another angle, an employer that followed its own process to the letter but still made a decision the tribunal found unfair.

Full citation

Agyeman v Avicenna Retail Ltd. Case 6002767/2023. Employment Tribunal (Bristol). 14 July 2025.

Last reviewed 20 July 2026