How to Prepare for a Disciplinary Hearing: A Step-by-Step Guide to Your Employee Rights
If you have been invited to a disciplinary hearing, the first thing to know is that you have more control over this than it probably feels like right now.
What is a workplace disciplinary hearing?
A disciplinary hearing is the formal meeting where your employer puts the allegation to you and gives you the chance to respond before any decision is made. No outcome should be decided before that process is complete. You have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative, and you should have been given the allegation in writing along with any evidence being relied on.
If you have not received those things, ask for them before you go in.
How to prepare for a disciplinary meeting effectively
The employees who feel most in control going into a hearing are the ones who have done the groundwork beforehand. That means understanding the allegation fully, gathering any evidence or correspondence that supports your position, identifying mitigating circumstances, and thinking clearly about what you actually want the outcome to be.
I have supported enough disciplinaries to have a pretty good sense of where a case is heading. I have been wrong in both directions where cases I thought would end in a final written warning ended in dismissal because there was no mitigation and the person did not seem to care, and cases that looked serious ended differently because the person came in with evidence and genuine mitigation.
How you show up matters, but the outcome always depends on the disciplinary chair and no one can guarantee what they will decide. Going in prepared, with a clear account and the right evidence behind you, gives you the best possible chance. It also means managing the mental side of it, because a disciplinary is one of the most stressful things that can happen at work and your headspace going in matters.
Get the Disciplinary Toolkit
I created the Facing a Disciplinary at Work toolkit specifically for this. It covers every stage of the process, what to check, what to prepare, what to ask, and how to stay clear-headed throughout. There is a dedicated section on suspension, a preparation checklist for the hearing itself, and a record-keeping timeline.
You can buy it on its own, or if you want proper support alongside it, book a session with Klar and it is included free.
Why Your Probation Period Matters More Than Ever in 2026
Most people start a new job focused on making a good impression, learning the ins and outs, and getting through the first few weeks. Probation feels like a formality and often like something that just passes.
However, your probation period is one of the most important stages of your employment, and how you approach it can make a real difference to how things go.
The law is changing
The Employment Rights Act 2025 will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to just six months, coming into force on 1 January 2027. This will apply for anyone starting from June 2026 onwards and anyone employed now. This is a significant shift meaning employees will gain stronger protections much earlier in their employment.
This doesn't mean we should all just go out and take our employers to tribunals next year. The change does go both ways. Employers know it is coming too, and many are already tightening how they manage probation as a result. If you are starting a new job, or currently in your probation period, being prepared matters more now than it ever has.
Probation runs both ways
It is easy to think of probation as something your employer does to you, like an assessment or a trial. Don't forget this is also your opportunity to assess them.
Is the role what you were told it would be? Is the support and onboarding you were promised actually being delivered? Are you getting clear feedback and regular check-ins? These things matter, and if they are not happening, it is worth noting.
Being prepared is not about being paranoid
Taking your probation seriously does not mean expecting the worst. It means setting yourself up properly from the start.
That looks like understanding what success looks like at the end of your probation, keeping a record of your achievements and any feedback you receive, making sure you come to review meetings prepared, and asking for anything important to be confirmed in writing.
If concerns are raised
If your employer raises concerns about your performance during probation, it is not automatically the end. What matters is how you respond.
Stay calm and ask for specific examples. Make sure you understand exactly what is expected of you going forward. Ask what support will be put in place and if something does not feel right, whether targets have shifted, feedback has appeared from nowhere, or the process feels unfair, you do not have to just accept it.
You have rights from day one
Being on probation does not mean you have no protections. Rights around discrimination and reasonable adjustments apply from the very first day of your employment, regardless of how long you have been there.
The bottom line
Probation does not have to be something that just happens to you. Going in with a clear understanding of what to expect, what your employer should be doing, and what to do if things do not go as planned puts you in a much stronger position.
If you want a straightforward guide to help you navigate your probation with confidence, you can download my probation toolkit here. (Please note that it will ask for your billing address. This does not mean you’re being charged for the toolkit)
Redundancy: a few things that are good to know
There's a phrase you'll hear a lot during a redundancy process: "it's not personal." I went through redundancy myself, and I can tell you that at the time, it absolutely felt personal. That's not a character flaw or an overreaction. When your job is going, your income is threatened and you're thrown into uncertainty, of course it feels personal. Anyone who tells you it shouldn't is not being very human about it.
The emotional weight of redundancy is real, and your employer can choose to handle the process with sensitivity and genuine support rather than just reciting the right legal phrases. If yours isn't, that's worth naming. I remember going through a consultation via Teams where one of the people leading it was late because they couldn't find a meeting room. Not illegal, but when you're at risk, that kind of thing signals how little care is being taken and I gave them feedback on it. How the employer handles it and how they treat you through says a lot about them.
One thing that trips a lot of people up is the assumption that if you're at risk, you're definitely going. That's not always true. The role is at risk, not automatically you. Employers are required to consult with you, and if you want to stay, it is completely reasonable to make that case. Make sure you ask question, ask what other roles might be available, ask what the selection criteria are and ask for time off for interviews. It is absolutely a good idea to engage with this process rather than just wait for an outcome.
Ask your employer whether they offer outplacement support. This is coaching provision, usually provided through an external organisation, designed to help you figure out your next step. It might mean exploring a different direction entirely, refreshing your CV, working on interview confidence, or just having space to think. Use it if it's available, but go in knowing what you want to get out of it. Said by someone who absolutely wasted it. Redundancy, while it feels like a door closing, is one of those moments where you might find something better than what you had, and for many people it ends up being that blessing in disguise.
The confidence knock is real too. Even when you know that redundancy is usuallyabout structure and cost, it has a habit of making people doubt themselves. If that's where you are, it's worth getting some support around that specifically rather than pushing through and hoping it resolves itself. Book a free 15-minute discovery call if you're not sure where to start.
70% of employees don't trust HR. Are they blaming the wrong people?
A TeamBlind survey of over 11,000 employees found that 70% or more do not trust HR. At some companies it's even higher: 83% at Intel, 79% at Amazon, 75% at eBay.
That's a striking number, but having spent over a decade in HR, I think it needs a bit more context.
Most HR professionals I know got into this work because they care about people. I've seen colleagues advocate hard behind closed doors for employees: pushing for a final written warning instead of dismissal, arguing for a welfare meeting for a grieving mother instead of a performance investigation, pushing back on managers who wanted to discipline parents for leaving to collect a sick child and telling them to have a proper conversation about flexibility instead.
That work happens. More than people realise.
It also comes at a cost. HR burnout is real, and most people wouldn't expect the reasons why. The emotional weight alone is heavy, but sometimes HR is also expected to absorb work far outside its expertise. At the height of furloughing 80 staff during Covid, I was asked to sign off a health and safety inspection I wasn't qualified to carry out. I refused, but that kind of demand is more common than people think.
On top of that, HR is often on the receiving end of abuse, from angry emails to deeply distressing workplace situations, while being blamed for decisions that were never theirs to make. Some even experience this outside of work.
That said, HR is not without fault. There are absolutely times where policy overrides common sense, where process is followed at the expense of basic decency. When that happens, distrust is justified. It should be challenged, and unfortunately just because something feels unfair, it doesn't mean it's illegal.
But the bigger issue is structural. HR works for the organisation, and leadership decides how it is used. The CEO announces the new benefits and the amazing company performance. HR delivers the mass redundancy announcement. So while leadership takes the credit, HR delivers the fallout and employees notice.
When pressure comes from the top, HR becomes the vehicle for decisions they didn't make and don't always agree with. It doesn't stop there. I once spent time preparing a manager for a difficult conversation with an underperforming employee, walking through exactly what to say and how to say it. We went through it together beforehand. When the meeting happened, the manager said nothing. Just sat in silence and looked at me to deliver the message instead. Afterwards, they claimed they hadn't known what to do. HR ends up carrying what managers won't, and employees are left to draw their own conclusions about who is really responsible.
Sometimes the distrust is fair, but very often, it's aimed at the wrong place.
The reality is that HR sits in the middle, but they're employed by the company. They can and often do push for better outcomes behind the scenes, but that position shapes what they can actually do for you.
That's where Klar comes in.
If you're dealing with a disciplinary, redundancy, grievance, or a manager pushing boundaries, I'll help you understand what's actually happening, what your rights are, and where you can push back. You don't have to just accept what you're told and you don't have to figure it out on your own. You can book in a call with me if you're facing something that doesn't seem right.
Grievances at Work: When to Raise One and When Not To
Very few problems at to work need to become a formal grievance. You may not have thought someone who makes a living a out of supporting people through these would say so, but it's true. In my experience, one of the most important things you can do when something goes wrong at work is work out early on whether formal is actually the right route.
Raising a grievance is your right, but it is also a significant step, and before raising anything, have a hard think on what you want to gain from it.
A formal grievance makes sense when something serious has happened and informal routes have genuinely failed or aren't appropriate. Discrimination, bullying, a significant breach of your contract, or a situation where speaking directly to the person involved isn't safe or realistic. These are situations where a formal process exists for good reason and where using it is entirely justified.
It also makes sense when you have raised something informally and nothing has changed, or when the issue is serious enough that you need it on record.
Some grievances should never become grievances and in all honesty, a majority of grievances I have been involved in should never have become a grievance.
I remember one clearly. An employee raised a formal grievance about the way a manager had handled an investigation they'd been involved in a month earlier. After a lot of back and forth it was agreed it would be investigated formally. This did nothing good for anyone. What usually happens here is that several people had time taken out of their schedules. The manager who'd conducted the original investigation had a direct tone, and it's possible the meeting had felt abrupt, but nothing had been raised at the time and this person was devastated to find out how they'd been perceived. They wanted to apologise and the employee raising the grievance didn't want to speak to them.
Looking back, what that individual needed was a way to give feedback and be heard. What they got instead was a formal process that didn't resolve anything and created more tension than it relieved. The specific situation solved itself a few months later as there was a restructure, so the individuals didn’t have to work together.
If someone came to me with that situation now, I'd help them think through what they actually wanted as an outcome. If it was to be heard and for things to change, I'd help them find a way to do that directly. If they weren't willing to do that, I'd be honest with them that a formal process was unlikely to give them what they were looking for.
The cost of unnecessary grievances
Formal grievances take time. They take time from you, from the people being investigated, from managers, from HR. They create tension and they go on record. In most cases they also damage working relationships, sometimes irreparably, even when the outcome is technically resolved.
That cost is worth it when the situation genuinely warrants it. When it doesn't, it can make things worse for everyone, including the person raising it.
The question worth asking first
Before you raise a formal grievance, it is worth sitting with a few questions. What outcome do you actually want? Is there a realistic way to get that outcome without going formal? Have you tried, or does it genuinely feel impossible? If the situation was resolved, what would that look like? What would make the outcome better by raising it formally rather than just speaking to the person?
Sometimes the honest answer is that what you want is for someone to acknowledge they got something wrong, or for a dynamic to change, or simply to feel heard. Those things are sometimes achievable without a formal process, and often more achievable that way.
That doesn't mean you should put up with things that aren't right. It means being clear on what you're trying to achieve and choosing the route most likely to get you there.
Where I come in
This is exactly the kind of conversation I have with people at the start of working together. Not to talk anyone out of raising a grievance they have every right to raise, but to help them think it through clearly before they do. What happened, what they want, what their options are, and what the likely outcomes of each route look like.
If you're in a situation at work that feels wrong and you're trying to work out what to do, that's a good point to talk it through. You can reach out via the contact page or you can book in a discovery call so we can chat it through.
Disciplinary Process at Work: What Your Employer Must Tell You (and What to Do If They Don’t)
"I was told it was a fact-finding meeting and next thing I'm in a disciplinary hearing."
This was a client I spoke to this week. They'd worked for their employer for a decade, had never been through a formal process before, and were given no explanation that a fact-finding meeting is an investigation, what that meant, what could follow, or what their rights were. They walked in unprepared and were left to piece together what was happening as it unfolded around them.
The communication that followed was no better. Emails throughout the process, then an outcome letter sent by post that hadn't been received before the employer moved things forward nearly two months later. This person didn't know they were on a final written warning until the next stage had already begun. When they asked for timeframes, the answers were vague.
By the time they came to me, several processes were open, legal advice was involved, and the working relationship had effectively broken down. A situation that might have been manageable had become something much harder to come back from.
This isn't unusual. And it almost always comes back to the same thing: nobody told the employee clearly what was happening, why, and what came next.
What employers should communicate at each stage
When an employer invites someone to an investigation meeting, they need to be clear that this is what it is. Calling it a "fact-finding meeting" or a "chat" without any further explanation isn't neutral, it's confusing. The employee should know it's a formal investigation and what it relates to.
The same applies at the disciplinary stage. The invite should set out the allegation clearly, confirm it is a formal disciplinary hearing, explain the potential outcomes including the range of sanctions that could follow, and confirm the right to be accompanied. An employee should never walk into a disciplinary hearing without understanding what they are walking into.
Outcomes need to be communicated directly and promptly. Sending a letter by post when the entire process has been conducted by email is not reasonable. Neither is leaving weeks or months between a decision being made and the employee being told. If someone is being issued a formal warning, they need to know that clearly, in writing, through a channel they actually have access to, with enough time to understand their right of appeal before anything else moves forward.
Timeframes matter too. Employees are entitled to ask how long a process is likely to take and to receive a genuine answer. Vagueness isn't neutral either. It just adds to the stress and uncertainty of an already difficult situation. This person asked for timeframes and was just told it would take some time to go through it all, but if you’ve not been through something like this before, it can be hard to tell what your rights actually are.
What to do if you're in this situation
If you've been invited to a meeting and you're not sure what it is, ask. You are entitled to know whether it is a formal meeting, what it relates to, and whether you have the right to be accompanied. If you're not given a clear answer, put the question in writing.
Keep a record of everything. Every meeting, every email, every conversation where something significant was said. If communication has been inconsistent or things have been handled in a way that doesn't seem right, that record matters.
If you receive an outcome and something doesn't add up, whether that's the decision itself, the way it was communicated, or the process that led to it, you usually have a right of appeal. Check your employer's disciplinary policy and use it.
If you're feeling overwhelmed by a process you've never been through before, that is completely understandable. These situations are stressful even when they're handled well. When they're handled badly, the impact on someone's confidence, wellbeing, and sense of control can be significant.
Where I come in
What struck me in our conversation was how different things might have looked if they'd known what was available after that very first meeting.
You don't have to wait until a situation has escalated before getting support. If something at work doesn't feel right, whether you've just been invited to a meeting you don't understand, you're partway through a process that feels chaotic, or you're trying to work out what your options are, that's exactly when it helps to talk it through with someone who knows this area.
If that's you, or someone you know, please do reach out. You can also get my Disciplinary Toolkit here.
Flexible working and reduced hours: you're not asking to do less work. You're asking to stop doing work that doesn't belong to you anymore.
Returning from maternity leave and thinking about reducing your hours can be a bit nervy.
You know you can't go back to exactly how things were before you left, but you may worry you’ve created a problem before it even started.
Your role hasn't stayed still while you've been away and has been covered in one way or another. Some parts will have been picked up by other people, some things will have been paused, and some things will have quietly stopped altogether because there simply wasn't capacity to keep everything exactly as it was.
You're not necessarily walking back into a fixed role that's waiting for you, but back into something that's already shifted.
This is where a lot of people get stuck. The instinct is to make everything fit into fewer hours. Same workload, same expectations, just compressed into less time. It feels responsible, but it's usually what creates the pushback, because it immediately raises concerns about what will drop, who will pick things up, and whether the quality of work will suffer.
The more effective approach isn't to protect everything. It's to accept that some of what you used to do probably no longer needs to sit with you at all.
Think about how your work was covered while you were away. Not defensively, but practically. Because it often becomes clear that certain tasks have already been absorbed elsewhere or quietly deprioritised, without the business collapsing as a result. That tells you something important about what's genuinely core to your role and what's simply accumulated over time. It may be that even before you went on maternity leave, parts of your role needed delegation, but you never got round to doing this. Returning from maternity leave may be the perfect time to start your role from a fresh.
A lot of employer resistance to reduced hours comes from the assumption that it will require additional resources or a major reorganisation. But in most cases, the reorganisation has already happened informally during your leave and the work is already sitting somewhere different. The question is whether it actually needs to come back to you in the same way, or at all.
That's why a strong request isn't about keeping everything intact, but about being clear on focus. What you're continuing to own, what no longer sits with you, and how the work is realistically structured given the hours you're returning on.
When you approach it that way, the conversation shifts. It stops being about whether the business can accommodate a reduction in hours and becomes about whether the current shape of the role actually makes sense anymore.
If you’re considering submitting a flexible working request, but you’re not sure where to start or how to angle it out, let’s have a chat.
How to talk to your manager when something isn't working
A lot of people I speak to are miserable at work but haven't said a single word about it to their manager. Not because nothing's wrong, but because they're scared of coming across as difficult.
I spoke to someone recently who felt completely unsupported. Their manager seemed to care about one thing which was whether they turned up to the office on the set days. No development conversations or targets and no real interest in how things were going.
When I asked if they'd raised it, the answer was no, so I asked what was stopping them, and they couldn't quite pinpoint it
So I brought in a bit of my Danish "I don't take any sh*t" approach and asked why they were just accepting it and something shifted. The person actually did care about their job, they wanted to grow, and they weren't someone who was fine with settling. So what made them act like they were fine with it?
That question answered it for them and from there, we looked at how to approach the conversation. Not confrontationally and definitely not as a list of complaints. We need to remember the manager wasn't doing anything wrong. They didn't know what this person needed because this person had never told them. Once we reframed it that way, the fear of "getting in trouble" started to look a lot less rational.
The conversation happened and the 1-1s improved. The working relationship got more productive. Not because anything dramatic changed, but because two people finally understood what the other one actually wanted.
Keep in mind a lot of managers do want to do a good job, but a lot of them have been placed in positions they've not been trained to do, and rather than fighting an inexperienced manager, how about trying to work with them? Every individual is also different and may require something different from their manager.
If you're putting your head down and getting on with it, but you're not okay with how things are, you don't have to choose between a formal grievance and just tolerating it. There's absolutely a middle option which is having the conversation, with a bit of support to work out how.
It usually sounds harder than it is. If there's a conversation at work you've been putting off, feel free to book a discovery call. Let's work out how to have it.
When a disciplinary hearing becomes about rebuilding, not defending
Most people in a disciplinary situation spend all their energy trying to minimise what happened. Softening the language, finding reasons why it was not quite as bad as it looks, hoping that if they frame it carefully enough the disciplinary chair will go easier on them.
But that is not always the best approach.
Sometimes the mistake has already been made, admitted, and owned. And in those cases, the conversation shifts entirely. It is not about damage limitation anymore. It is about how your employer can regain trust in you to do your job again.
Because if you have already held your hand up, the narrative has shifted. You are not managing suspicion anymore. You are managing reputation and those are different problems with different solutions.
So that is what good preparation looks like in that situation and this is typically how I work with clients. How do you demonstrate genuine remorse without it looking performative? What does rebuilding trust actually look like in practice, not just in words? How do you show an employer you have worked for, for years, that you are still someone worth keeping?
It is a harder conversation than "here is how to defend yourself", but it is also a more honest one. In my experience, honesty is what a disciplinary chair actually responds to as this is how they’ll be able to see if they can trust you moving forward and if you are being genuine. Not a perfectly polished account, not all the right words in the right order, but someone who clearly understands what they did, why it was wrong, and what they are going to do differently.
It is worth being clear: the outcome of a disciplinary hearing is always the employer's decision. Feedback I keep getting is, “They didn’t expect me to be this prepared”, so what I can do is help you walk in prepared, clear-headed, and presenting yourself in the best possible light. It can be a horrible thing to go through alone. If you are facing something like this at work, and need a non-judgemental and pragmatic point of view, feel free to reach out. You can also read about what disicplinary support looks like with me. This will of course be tailored to your specific situation.
You can also download resources here. The probation toolkit is free to download and you can find it here.
Using AI to Write Your Grievance Letter? Read This First
If you've ever typed a workplace problem into ChatGPT and asked it to write a grievance letter, you're not alone. Solicitors are expensive, your employer's HR team works for the company, and free advice is just a search away, so to some, it just makes sense.
AI can actually get a lot of employment law right. A lot of it is accurate and it will produce something that looks professional and thorough. The problem is that it doesn't know you, your workplace, or what you actually want to happen. It will cite legislation that can be wrong or may not apply to your specific situation and it can turn a problem that could have been resolved in a ten minute conversation into a twenty page document that puts everyone on the defensive before you've even sat down together.
Grievances are emotionally draining for everyone involved. They can permanently change working relationships, even when they're resolved. That's not a reason to avoid raising one when something is genuinely wrong, but it is a reason to think carefully before you fire one off.
Most workplace problems, not all, but most, could have been resolved through conversation before they reached this point. The reason they often don't is that the employee doesn't feel their manager is approachable, or doesn't feel confident having that conversation. That's completely understandable, but it doesn't mean a formal grievance is automatically the answer.
Employers are seeing a huge influx in these AI generated grievances, and although I have seen a lot of eye-rolling from the receiving end, these grievances usually come from a place of power imbalance and there are obviously some issues that need resolving. Now that the tools are freely available, they're being used more than ever.
If you do decide a formal grievance is the right route, there's nothing wrong with using AI to help write it up once you know what you want to say. That's no different to asking someone to proofread your work. The key is that you're leading it and you understand what happened, what you want to raise, and what outcome you're hoping for. AI can help with the words, but the thinking has to be yours.
AI is also only as good as the knowledge you bring to it. Just like you need to understand coding to use AI to write useful code, you need strong employment law knowledge to sense-check what it produces. I have created a grievance template that you can download here
If something doesn't feel right at work and you're not sure how to handle it, I am more than happy to talk it through with you and help you assess the whole situation to look at how to either approach that difficult conversation at work, or how to start if a formal grievance is really warranted. You can start with booking in a free discovery call. I also have a section on grievance support if you want to have a look at what this support consists of before booking a session with me. Every situation is of course unique and you will not just be getting general advice.
Returning from maternity leave? Why flexible working matters more now than ever
Your employer was brilliant when you were pregnant. Flexible with appointments, understanding when you were exhausted, letting you work from home in those final weeks when the commute felt impossible. They offered generous maternity pay. They probably sent flowers when the baby arrived. You felt looked after and you thought it was going to be okay.
Then you went back to work.
Suddenly, the flexibility that felt natural becomes a negotiation. The understanding disappears. You’re back at your desk, but your head is somewhere else entirely, in a nursery across town with a baby who seems to have a cold every week, because that’s what happens.
You’re commuting again, and it feels longer than you remember. You’re trying to remember who you were at work, while also figuring out who you are now. You’re leaving a small person who cries when you hand them over, and carrying that with you all day. Then the nursery calls. Temperature spike and you have to drop everything and go.
This is the part that actually needs flexibility.
Pregnancy had a timeline, an end point. This doesn’t. The early months of being a working parent are messy, emotional and unpredictable.
Some employers understand that. They see someone navigating all of that and still showing up, still delivering, still caring about their work, and they don’t make it harder, but not all employers do.
When support is pulled back at the exact moment it’s needed most, it sends a message. This may not be intentional, but it will feel so to the person returning. The maternity pay, the flexibility, the flowers start to feel like gestures rather than a commitment to support you through what comes next.
That contrast is hard to ignore. You saw how they handled your pregnancy and assumed that the goodwill would continue. Instead, you feel judged for being late because your child was upset at drop-off, or questioned because you need to leave early, again, to collect a poorly child.
All of this while you’re exhausted and adjusting to a completely new life.
Returning from maternity leave is one of the biggest transitions in your working life. You’re rebuilding confidence, managing guilt, learning new logistics, and trying to stay present at work when part of you is always somewhere else. That’s overwhelming and sadly it even makes some new parents leave the workforce completely.
If something doesn’t feel right about how you’re being treated since you came back, it’s possible you’re not overthinking it, and you don’t have to work out what to do about it on your own. Sometimes, just talking it through with someone who understands both sides is enough to help you figure out your next step and you can always start by dropping me a message if you’re unsure of where to start.
Your flexible working request was refused. But was it actually a legitimate reason?
You put in a flexible working request. Thought it through, wrote it up, submitted it. And then your employer came back and said no, because their policy says you need to be in the office three or four days a week.
On its own, that isn't a valid statutory reason to refuse. An employer has to link that requirement to one of the legal business grounds and explain why it applies.
The whole point of a flexible working request is to change an existing arrangement. On its own, that kind of reasoning usually isn't enough. The employer still needs to show how keeping the current arrangement meets one of the legal grounds.
What does the law actually say?
Employers in the UK can only refuse a flexible working request on one of eight specific grounds. Things like the burden of additional costs, a detrimental effect on meeting customer demand, or an inability to reorganise work among existing staff.
"Our policy says you need to be in the office" is not on that list.
What makes this even more frustrating is that many of the same employers refusing requests cite a flexible working policy sitting on their intranet. They've committed in writing to considering requests fairly and individually. Falling back on a blanket office rule, without tying it to a real business reason, risks not meeting what the law actually requires.
The parent in the room
A parent, often but not always a mother, is back from maternity leave or juggling childcare alongside a demanding job. They ask for one or two extra days working from home. They're not asking to do less. They're asking to do the same job from a different place.
The employer says no, because the policy says three days in the office.
If the refusal isn't backed up by a clear business reason, it can look less like a genuine operational need and more like a default position. And depending on the circumstances, it can carry real legal risk, particularly where the refusal disproportionately affects employees with caring responsibilities.
Being reasonable is easier for everyone
A conversation costs very little. A tribunal costs a lot more, and that's before you factor in the time, the stress, and the reputational damage. Where a refusal isn't clearly linked to one of the legal grounds and handled reasonably, the legal risk becomes very real.
It's also worth saying: considering a request individually doesn't mean saying yes to everyone or opening the floodgates. Each case stands on its own. The question is whether the rigidity is actually gaining anything, or whether it's just easier than having the conversation.
Being the employer who turned down a returning parent because of a policy isn't a great look. People talk, and workplace culture is a lot more visible from the outside than it used to be.
What can you do if this happens to you?
If your request has been refused and the reason isn't clearly explained or linked to a legal ground, you have options.
Ask for the decision in writing if you don't have it already, along with the specific business reason. Vague or policy-based refusals are much harder to defend once they're written down.
You can appeal. Most employers have a process for this, and going through it formally shows you're taking it seriously and creates a paper trail if things escalate.
Think about whether there are grounds for a grievance, especially if the refusal is connected to a protected characteristic like sex or disability.
You don't have to accept a refusal that doesn't stack up. And you don't have to figure it out on your own.
If your flexible working request has been refused and something doesn't feel right about the reason, get in touch. I can help you work out what your options actually are.
What to do if you've been placed on a PIP at work
No prior warnings. No informal conversations. No documented concerns. Just a PIP. Somehow you're expected to know what to do next.
Something I'm seeing more and more at the moment, and one of the reasons I started Klar.
People are being placed on Performance Improvement Plans with no prior warnings, no informal feedback, and no documented concerns. No conversation before it. Just straight to a PIP.
This seems to be happening with increasing frequency, and very often with employees who have under two years of service. I suspect this is not unrelated to the upcoming Employment Rights Act, which will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. Employers who want to move people on are doing it now, before that window closes so they can manage employees out to make it harder for them to claim unfair dismissal.
If that's the situation you're in, I want to say this clearly: being placed on a PIP out of nowhere is not a reflection of your worth or your ability. It can knock your confidence, especially when any feedback you've had up to that point has been minimal or unclear, and this is the first time anything formal has been raised.
There are different reasons a PIP gets misused. Sometimes a manager has avoided difficult conversations for too long and reaches for a formal process because they don't know how to handle it. Sometimes emotions get in the way of what should be a straightforward process. One I’m seeing a lot is a new manager who wants to show their authority. Whatever the reason, if a PIP lands without prior feedback and with targets that are unclear, that says more about the manager than it does about you.
A PIP, when used properly, can be a genuinely useful tool. I've seen people go through one, come out the other side, and go on to be promoted. Clear goals, regular feedback, and real support can turn things around. That's what a PIP is supposed to do. But arriving at one without any prior conversation or support is a different experience entirely, and it's okay and completely normal to feel cornered by it.
I worked with someone recently who was about to go into a PIP meeting having never experienced anything like it before. They didn't know what to expect, what they were entitled to ask, or how to approach it without feeling like the outcome had already been decided.
By the end of our session that had changed. They knew what questions to raise, what evidence and support to ask for, and how to walk in with a clear head. What had felt overwhelming became something they felt prepared for. They went into that meeting with confidence, asked for things they wouldn't have known to ask for, and left clear on where they stood. A few weeks on, with regular feedback and defined goals, things are moving in the right direction. You can download my guide here on navigating the PIP process.
You don't have to walk into that room without knowing your options.
If you've been placed on a PIP and don't know where to start, feel free to get in touch. A free discovery call is a good place to begin.
Why do I feel anxious before every meeting with my manager?
Early in my HR career, I had a manager who made me dread every meeting request. One-to-ones only happened when something had gone wrong. They were formal, documented, and felt more like investigations than conversations. Minor errors became major events, at least mine did.
It became clear over time that something wasn't right. The dynamic was different with me. My errors were flagged and documented while the same mistakes from colleagues didn’t seem as that big a deal. The warmth and patience they showed others wasn't extended to me and their tone towards me was different, and I was aware of it even if I couldn't articulate it at the time. I wasn't perfect, and there were things that genuinely needed addressing. But the way those things were handled, compared to how my colleagues were treated, wasn't consistent or fair.
At the time I didn't have the experience or the confidence to name what was happening. I just absorbed it.
The thing about that kind of environment is that it doesn't stay in that job. I carried it into the next one, and the one after that. Even with managers who were good, who gave balanced feedback and actually supported me, I would feel a spike of anxiety when a meeting landed in my diary. That "can we catch up?" message. The unnamed calendar invite. My brain would immediately start searching for what I'd done wrong.
It took a long time to recognise that the anxiety wasn't about my current manager. It was a response I'd learned somewhere else entirely. And once I could see that, I could start doing something about it.
It still pops up. Probably always will to some extent. But I'm much better at it now. When that feeling comes up, I breathe through it, acknowledge why it's there, and wait for it to pass. It does pass. The difference now is that I know what it is, and I don't let it run.
Looking back, what I needed at the time wasn't just a better manager, though that would have helped. I needed someone outside of it to talk things through with. Someone who could help me see what was actually happening, what was mine to own and what wasn't, and how to handle conversations I was terrified of having.
If you're early in your career and dreading a meeting with your manager, or if you've been in work for years and still feel that same anxiety, it doesn't have to stay that way. Sometimes it just takes one honest conversation to start unpicking it.
That's what I'm here for. If you need some support to approach a difficult conversation with your manager, please contact me here to book in a discovery call or a session with me.