When Employees Feel Their Manager Is Treating Them Unfairly

Introduction

Imagine an employee who feels like their manager is always treating them differently. Maybe the manager gives the best projects to the same few people. Maybe they criticize one employee in front of everyone but speak nicely to others. Maybe one employee gets extra work while another gets more flexibility. So, the employee starts thinking, "Why am I being treated differently?"

At first, the employee may not complain. They may think it is just one bad day. Then it happens again. And again. So, slowly, the employee starts feeling that the workplace is not fair.

This is where employee relations becomes important. Employee relations is basically about managing the relationship between employees and the organization. So, when an employee feels they are being treated unfairly by their manager, HR cannot simply say, "Talk to your manager and sort it out." The issue needs to be understood properly because sometimes the problem is not only the manager's decision. It can also be about how the decision was made, how it was explained, and how the employee was treated while discussing it.

This is where organizational justice becomes useful. In simple words, organizational justice is about whether employees feel that they are being treated fairly at work. So, fairness is not only about getting the same result as everyone else. It is also about having a fair process, being treated with respect, and getting a proper explanation.

The Problem

One of the biggest problems with unfair treatment is that it can be difficult to identify from the outside. A manager may think they are simply managing performance, assigning work, or making business decisions. But the employee may see the same action as favouritism, unfair treatment, or even personal targeting.

For example, imagine two employees have similar performance levels. One gets an interesting project and regular praise from the manager. The other keeps getting routine work and receives criticism in front of the team. So, the second employee may start feeling that the manager has already decided who they like and who they do not.

Another example could be leave approval. If one employee is allowed to work from home whenever they ask, but another employee is regularly refused without a clear reason, the second employee may start questioning the fairness of the system.

So, the problem is not always that the manager made the wrong decision. The problem can also be that employees do not understand why the decision was made or feel that the same rules are not being applied to everyone.

If HR ignores this, the problem can grow. The employee may stop raising concerns, lose trust in the manager, make a formal grievance, or eventually leave the organization. So, a small feeling of unfairness can slowly become a bigger employee relations problem.

Analysis of the Problem

The first thing HR needs to understand is that fairness has different parts. So, saying "the manager should be fair" is actually much more complicated than it sounds.

One part is distributive justice. This is about whether the outcome feels fair. For example, did two employees receive fair rewards for their work? Did people with similar performance receive similar opportunities? If one person gets a promotion while another person with similar results does not, the employee may question whether the outcome was fair.

Another part is procedural justice. This is about whether the process used to make the decision was fair. So, even if an employee does not get the result they wanted, they may still accept it if they feel that the organization followed a clear and fair process.

For example, suppose an employee does not get promoted. They may be disappointed. But if the company clearly explained the promotion criteria, gave both employees the same chance to apply, and used the same evaluation process, the employee may see the decision as more fair.

Then there is interpersonal justice. This is about how the employee is treated while decisions are being made or explained. So, a manager can technically make a fair decision but communicate it in a disrespectful way. For example, saying "You are clearly not good enough for this role" in front of the whole team can make the employee feel humiliated.

There is also informational justice. This is about whether employees receive enough information and a proper explanation about decisions. So, if a manager suddenly changes an employee's responsibilities without explaining why, the employee may feel that something unfair is happening.

This is why HR needs to look beyond the question, "Was the manager's decision right or wrong?" HR should also ask, "Was the process fair? Was the employee treated respectfully? Was the decision explained properly? And were similar employees treated in a similar way?"

A Real-Life Case: OCS Group UK

A useful real-life example comes from OCS Group UK, a facilities management company. The case involved a Soft Service Manager who later faced grievances from two colleagues about the way she treated them. The complaints included claims that she shouted at employees, was intimidating and abusive, treated employees badly, and humiliated them. These were allegations made during the grievance process, so they should be understood as complaints that were investigated rather than simply accepted as facts from the beginning.

The company's grievance policy said that when a grievance was about the employee's own line manager, it could be submitted directly to HR. This is important because employees should not be forced to complain to the same manager they are complaining about.

The grievances were investigated. During the investigation, other employees were interviewed and their statements were considered. The information collected during the grievance investigation was then used in disciplinary proceedings against the manager.

The disciplinary process resulted in the manager being dismissed for gross misconduct based on findings of bullying and breach of trust and confidence. The manager appealed against the dismissal, but the appeal was rejected. These events were later discussed in a 2024 judgment of the High Court of England and Wales.

What makes this case interesting for HR is that the problem did not simply end with an employee saying, "My manager is unfair." There was a formal process. The organization collected information, investigated the complaints, considered evidence, and then took action through its disciplinary process.

So, the bigger lesson is that when an employee complains about unfair treatment, HR should not immediately decide that either the employee or the manager is right. HR needs to create a process where both sides can be heard and the facts can be checked.

Case and HR Theories, Frameworks, Models and Concepts Reflected in the Problem

The main concept reflected in this case is organizational justice. In simple words, employees judge whether their workplace is fair based on both the results they receive and the way they are treated. So, an employee can feel unfairly treated even when the organization believes that its decision was reasonable.

Distributive justice is reflected when employees compare what they receive with what other employees receive. This could include work opportunities, promotions, rewards, schedules, recognition or other benefits. So, if employees feel that similar people are receiving very different outcomes without a clear reason, they may see the workplace as unfair.

Procedural justice is also important. This focuses on the process used to reach a decision. So, HR needs clear rules about how grievances are raised, investigated and decided. A fair process should give the employee a chance to explain what happened and should also allow the manager to respond.

Interpersonal justice is reflected in the way managers communicate with employees. If a manager speaks aggressively, humiliates an employee or treats them disrespectfully, the employee may feel unfairly treated even if the actual work decision was reasonable.

Informational justice is connected to communication. Employees usually want to know why something happened. So, when HR or a manager gives a clear explanation instead of simply saying "This is the decision," employees have more information to understand the situation.

Another important concept is grievance redressal. A grievance is basically an employee's complaint about something they believe is wrong or unfair at work. Grievance redressal means having a proper way to receive, investigate and resolve that complaint.

The idea of due process is also important. In simple words, due process means that an employee should not be judged or punished without a proper process. HR should collect information, hear the relevant people, check the evidence and make decisions based on the facts.

Finally, there is the consistency principle. If the organization has a rule, employees should generally expect that rule to be applied in a consistent way. So, if one employee is punished for something while another employee does the same thing and faces no action, HR needs to understand why the treatment was different.

Solution Using HR Theories, Frameworks, Models and Concepts

The first step should be to give employees a clear grievance channel. Employees should know where they can go if they have a problem with their manager. So, they should not have to guess whether they should speak to HR, another manager, an employee relations team or another formal channel.

The second step is to separate the complaint from the person being complained about. If an employee raises a grievance against their direct manager, the manager should not be the only person responsible for deciding the complaint. An independent HR person or another appropriate manager can handle the process.

The third step is to listen to both sides. So, HR should speak to the employee who raised the grievance and then give the manager a proper chance to explain their side. HR can also speak to witnesses and check relevant records, emails, performance documents or other information when needed.

The fourth step is to check consistency. HR should ask whether similar situations have been handled in the same way before. For example, if an employee was given a warning for missing a target, HR can check whether other employees who missed similar targets received similar treatment.

The fifth step is to look at how the manager communicated. Sometimes the final decision may be reasonable, but the way it was communicated creates the problem. So, managers should be trained to give feedback privately, explain decisions clearly, avoid personal comments and allow employees to ask questions.

The sixth step is to give the employee an outcome and an explanation. HR does not have to share every confidential detail, but the employee should know that their complaint was considered and what general action will be taken. Otherwise, the employee may feel that they complained and nothing happened.

HR should also have an appeal process. So, if an employee believes that the grievance was not handled properly, there should be another level where the decision or process can be reviewed.

Most importantly, HR should watch for retaliation. If an employee complains about a manager and suddenly receives worse shifts, unfair workload, negative treatment or other punishment because they complained, the original grievance can become an even bigger problem.

So, the process can be kept simple:

Employee raises concern → HR acknowledges it → Information is collected → Both sides are heard → Evidence is reviewed → Decision is made → Action is taken → Employee is informed → Appeal is available if needed.

Actual Solution Implemented in Real Life

The OCS Group UK case shows several of these ideas being used in a real workplace. Because the grievances were about the employee's own line manager, the company's policy allowed the complaints to go directly to HR. This helped separate the complaint from the manager who was being complained about.

The organization then investigated the complaints. Colleagues were interviewed and information from the investigation was considered. The findings from the grievance investigation later became part of disciplinary proceedings against the manager.

The disciplinary process ended with dismissal for gross misconduct based on findings of bullying and breach of trust and confidence. The manager appealed, but the appeal was rejected. So, in this case, the grievance process did not simply stop at listening to the employee. It created a formal route for checking the complaint and, where the investigation supported further action, moving the matter into the disciplinary process.

Research on grievance systems also shows why this process matters. Formal grievance procedures can give employees a way to raise concerns and can support equal treatment and procedural fairness. So, a grievance system is not just paperwork for HR. It can become an important part of how employees experience fairness in the organization.

Conclusion

When an employee says, "My manager is treating me unfairly," HR should not immediately decide that the manager is bad or that the employee is overreacting. So, the first job of HR is to understand what actually happened.

Fairness is also not just about giving everyone exactly the same thing. It is about having a fair process, treating people with respect, explaining decisions properly and applying rules consistently.

For me, this is what makes employee relations interesting. Sometimes an employee does not want a special benefit or even a different outcome. They simply want to know that their complaint was heard and that the organization took it seriously.

So, HR's job is not to automatically take the employee's side or the manager's side. It is to create a process where both sides can be heard, the facts can be checked and a fair decision can be made.

Because when employees believe that they can speak up without being ignored or punished, HR becomes more than just the department that handles complaints. It becomes the system that helps make fairness real at wor