A managing partner has denied trying to belittle her head of employment by sending emails to colleagues complaining that he was under-performing.
Rakeebah Rahim said her criticism of Gerard Airey was not a personal attack but instead an example of how she did not 'mince my words' and 'tells it how it is'.
Rahim, managing partner of national firm Ronald Fletcher Baker, was directly cross-examined by Airey yesterday at an employment tribunal hearing. He claims he was demoted before his resignation and was constructively dismissed.
The tribunal heard that Airey was recruited on a salary of £90,000 a year. The firm invested more than £5,000 in bringing in employment claims in a bid to grow the department.
Rahim claimed that Airey had promised to bill £500,000 in a year, but this was revised down to £376,000 and he met that target.
The managing partner said she would often email equity partners in a bid to be open and transparent, but Airey as a salaried partner was not included. In one email she said Airey was a ‘problem’, while on another occasion when he had to isolate at home during lockdown she told colleagues it ‘wasn’t a great start’ to the year.
Addressing Airey, Rahim said: ‘I am not on a vendetta against you.’
Airey suggested that his former boss was trying to ‘belittle’ him in front of partners through group emails. She replied: ‘This was me trying to help you to grow and develop the business… my intention was always to support you and help you to grow this department.’
Rahim accepted Airey was a good technical lawyer and she trusted his expertise, but she said he did not meet expectations in terms of work brought in.
‘You were a bit lazy, let’s put it that way,’ Rahim said. ‘You felt very entitled but you just sat there being the best lawyer and everyone has to provide you with their work. It is something I was trying to bring out of you and trying to help get you to generate your own work.’
The tribunal heard that Airey’s colleagues were singled out for working ‘tirelessly’ for the firm. He suggested it was unfair that his own efforts were not recognised in the same way.
He claimed he was being ‘set up to fail’ by the firm cutting investment in his department and moving a colleague to another section of the business. The tribunal saw three emails where Rahim discussed whether Airey could be made into a consultant, and she even discussed with equity partners whether it was feasible to reduce his notice period and salary. She denied this was an attempt to undermine him and said her intention was to push the business to be as resilient as possible.
In another email to equity partners, Rahim accused Airey of wanting a ‘cushy lifestyle’ leaving others to support him. Airey said this was ‘completely false’.
Rahim told the tribunal: ‘This was me trying to run a firm with 140 people… with people who are just not performing. This is an exasperation of that.’
Rahim said Airey was ‘hardly in the office’ but he disputed that. She told him in cross-examination: ‘You found every excuse not to be in the office. Yes there were lockdowns when no-one came to the office. But there were many other days when you just simply didn’t come to the office when there was the opportunity to do so.’
Rahim suggested that in November 2020 Airey told her he was taking off the whole of December to be fresh ahead of the new year, and said there was a pattern of him taking extended holidays. Airey said this was ‘nonsense’.
The hearing, before employment judge Forde and two panel members, continues.
