Favouritism at Work

Workplace favouritism occurs when managers or employers show preferential treatment to certain employees over others, often without legitimate business justification. While some degree of preference based on performance, skills, or business needs is acceptable, favouritism becomes problematic when it's systematic, unfair, or based on discriminatory factors.

The legal threshold is crossed when favouritism amounts to discrimination based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Act, creates unjustifiable disadvantage in employment, or contributes to a pattern of treatment that could constitute constructive dismissal. Common examples include consistently passing over qualified employees for promotion in favour of less qualified colleagues, providing better resources or support to preferred employees, or applying different disciplinary standards.

The impact on workplace culture can be significant, creating division among staff and undermining morale. From a legal perspective, the focus is on whether the favouritism breaches the employer's duty to act in good faith and treat employees fairly. This includes ensuring that employment decisions are based on legitimate business criteria rather than personal preferences or discriminatory factors.

Documentation becomes crucial in these situations. Patterns of favouritism are often more telling than isolated incidents, so keeping detailed records of differential treatment, missed opportunities, and the business justifications (or lack thereof) provided by management helps establish whether the line into unlawful territory has been crossed.

Promotion favouritism is one of the most common and impactful forms, where less qualified or experienced employees are consistently promoted over more deserving candidates. This often involves bypassing normal recruitment processes, failing to advertise positions internally, or applying different criteria to different candidates without business justification.

Resource and opportunity favouritism manifests through unequal access to training, professional development, equipment, or high-profile projects. When certain employees consistently receive better tools, support, or opportunities to advance their careers while others are systematically excluded, it can amount to unjustifiable disadvantage in employment.

Disciplinary favouritism involves applying different standards of conduct or consequences to similar behaviour. This might include overlooking misconduct by favoured employees while strictly enforcing rules against others, or imposing harsher penalties on some employees for identical infractions. Such inconsistency can breach natural justice principles and good faith employment obligations.

Social or personal favouritism based on relationships outside work, shared interests, or personal connections can become legally problematic when it influences employment decisions. While workplace relationships are natural, they become concerning when they result in unfair advantages in terms of work allocation, performance assessments, or career advancement opportunities.

The key legal test is whether the favouritism creates such disparity in treatment that it amounts to a fundamental breach of the employment relationship or constitutes discrimination on prohibited grounds.

The crucial distinction between lawful preference and unlawful discrimination often lies in the underlying reasons for the favouritism. When favouritism is based on prohibited grounds such as gender, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics, it clearly constitutes discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

However, favouritism can be unlawful even when it's not based on prohibited grounds if it creates unjustifiable disadvantage or breaches the duty of good faith. For example, consistently favouring employees based purely on personal relationships rather than merit can breach employment law principles, even if no protected characteristic is involved.

Indirect discrimination can also occur through favouritism that appears neutral but disproportionately affects certain groups. For instance, favouring employees who can work long hours or attend after-work social events might indirectly discriminate against employees with family responsibilities, particularly women.

The legal framework requires employers to make employment decisions based on legitimate business criteria. When favouritism undermines this principle, it can breach both specific anti-discrimination laws and general employment law obligations. The impact on the affected employee's career prospects, workplace treatment, and overall employment experience becomes the focus of legal assessment.

Understanding this distinction is important because it affects both the legal remedies available and the strength of any potential claim. Discrimination claims may be pursued under human rights legislation as well as employment law, potentially providing broader remedies and longer timeframes for action.

Systematic workplace favouritism can create conditions that amount to constructive dismissal when the treatment becomes so unfair and intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel they have no choice but to resign. This occurs when the cumulative effect of favouritism fundamentally breaches the employment relationship.

The legal test focuses on whether the employer's conduct, viewed objectively, would lead a reasonable employee in the same position to conclude that the employer no longer intended to be bound by the employment contract. Systematic favouritism that blocks career advancement, creates hostile working conditions, or undermines an employee's role can meet this threshold.

Key indicators include being consistently excluded from opportunities available to others, having responsibilities removed or reduced without justification, being subjected to different performance standards, or experiencing a pattern of treatment that effectively marginalises the employee within the organisation.

Before resigning and claiming constructive dismissal, employees typically need to raise their concerns with the employer and provide an opportunity for the issues to be addressed. This might involve following internal complaint procedures, raising concerns with HR, or formally notifying management of the problems and requesting resolution.

The timing of resignation is crucial - it should occur while the constructive dismissal conditions exist, not after they've been resolved or after accepting the situation for an extended period. Legal advice is essential before taking this step, as the consequences of an unsuccessful constructive dismissal claim can be significant.

Building a strong case requires systematic documentation of favouritism patterns rather than relying on isolated incidents. Keep detailed records of specific examples, including dates, witnesses, and the business justification (or lack thereof) provided for decisions that appear to favour certain employees unfairly.

Email communications can provide powerful evidence, particularly those showing different treatment for similar situations or revealing the decision-making process behind promotions, assignments, or disciplinary actions. Save relevant emails and document verbal conversations in writing as soon as possible after they occur.

Performance-related documentation is crucial, including your own performance reviews, feedback, and achievements compared to those of favoured colleagues. If you're consistently meeting or exceeding expectations but being passed over for opportunities, this disparity needs to be clearly documented with specific examples and dates.

Witness statements from colleagues who have observed the differential treatment can strengthen your case significantly. However, be mindful that colleagues may be reluctant to get involved due to fear of retaliation, so approach this sensitively and consider whether their observations are essential to your case.

Policy documents showing how decisions should be made versus how they're actually being made can highlight procedural unfairness. This includes recruitment policies, promotion criteria, performance management procedures, and any other relevant workplace policies that aren't being followed consistently.

The goal is to establish a clear pattern of treatment that goes beyond normal management discretion and demonstrates systematic unfairness that breaches employment law principles.

Before pursuing external legal action, employment law generally requires you to raise concerns internally and give your employer an opportunity to address the issues. This demonstrates good faith and may resolve the problem without the need for formal legal proceedings.

Start by reviewing your workplace policies for complaint procedures, grievance processes, or anti-discrimination policies. Follow these procedures where they exist, as failure to do so may weaken any subsequent legal claim. Document each step you take and the responses you receive.

When raising concerns, be specific about the favouritism you've experienced, provide concrete examples, and explain how it's affecting your employment. Focus on the impact on your work, career prospects, and workplace treatment rather than making personal attacks on individuals involved.

Consider whether to approach your direct manager, HR department, or senior management, depending on who is involved in the favouritism and your workplace structure. If your direct manager is part of the problem, you may need to escalate to higher levels or use alternative reporting channels.

Keep detailed records of all communications, meetings, and responses to your concerns. If the employer fails to investigate properly, dismisses your concerns without adequate consideration, or retaliates against you for raising them, this strengthens any subsequent legal claim.

Be prepared that raising concerns may not immediately resolve the situation and could potentially make workplace relationships more difficult. However, this step is usually necessary both legally and practically before considering external options.

If internal processes fail to resolve favouritism issues, you may be able to raise a personal grievance claiming unjustifiable disadvantage, discrimination, or constructive dismissal. The 90-day time limit for raising grievances makes prompt action essential once you recognise the pattern of unfair treatment.

The personal grievance process typically begins with attempting to resolve the matter through direct discussion or mediation. Many favouritism cases can be resolved at this stage through negotiated settlements that address the underlying issues and provide appropriate compensation.

If mediation fails, the matter may proceed to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) for investigation and determination. The ERA will examine whether the favouritism amounts to a breach of employment law and, if so, what remedies are appropriate.

Successful favouritism claims can result in various remedies including compensation for lost wages, hurt and humiliation, career impact, and potentially reinstatement or other workplace changes. The specific remedies depend on the nature and impact of the favouritism and what's needed to address the situation.

The process can be complex and emotionally challenging, particularly when you're still employed by the organisation involved. Legal representation helps navigate the procedural requirements, assess the strength of your case, and negotiate the best possible outcome.

Consider the potential impact on your current employment and future career prospects when deciding whether to pursue formal action. Sometimes negotiated settlements that allow for dignified departure with appropriate compensation may be preferable to lengthy legal proceedings.

The impact of workplace favouritism extends beyond immediate career prospects to affect professional reputation, skill development, and long-term earning capacity. Courts and the ERA consider both tangible losses like missed promotions or training opportunities and intangible harm such as damage to professional standing and career trajectory.

Financial remedies may include compensation for lost wages from missed promotions, reimbursement for training or development opportunities denied, and payment for the difference in benefits or conditions between what you received and what favoured employees obtained. Calculating these losses requires careful analysis of career progression and market rates.

Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings recognises the personal impact of unfair treatment. The amount varies based on the severity and duration of the favouritism, its impact on your wellbeing, and the degree of the employer's breach of employment obligations.

Non-financial remedies might include policy changes to prevent future favouritism, training for managers on fair employment practices, or restructuring of decision-making processes to ensure transparency and fairness. In some cases, reinstatement or role changes may be appropriate if the employment relationship can be restored.

The goal of remedies is both to compensate for harm suffered and to address the underlying issues that allowed favouritism to occur. This dual purpose means that successful claims often result in broader workplace improvements beyond individual compensation.

Consider whether you want to continue working for the organisation or prefer to move on with appropriate compensation. This affects both the remedies you seek and the approach to resolving the matter.

Seek legal advice as soon as you recognise a pattern of favouritism that's affecting your employment, rather than waiting to see if the situation improves. Early legal guidance helps you understand your rights, document evidence effectively, and make informed decisions about how to proceed.

Immediate legal consultation is essential if you're considering resigning due to favouritism, as the constructive dismissal process has strict requirements and timing considerations. Similarly, if you've been passed over for promotion or subjected to disciplinary action that appears to be influenced by favouritism, prompt legal advice helps preserve your options.

The 90-day time limit for raising personal grievances makes early action crucial. Even if you're hoping to resolve matters internally, understanding your legal position and ensuring you're documenting evidence properly protects your interests if internal processes fail.

Legal advice is particularly important when favouritism appears to be based on discriminatory grounds, as this may provide additional legal avenues and remedies under human rights legislation. The intersection between employment law and anti-discrimination law can be complex and requires specialist expertise.

Consider the potential impact on your current employment when seeking legal advice. Many employment lawyers offer confidential initial consultations that allow you to understand your position without immediately escalating the situation with your employer.

Don't wait until the favouritism has severely damaged your career or forced you to resign. Early intervention often provides more options and better outcomes than waiting until the situation becomes desperate.