- 24-hour Emergency Line: 0300 30 32 442
The consultant, Dr. X, experienced difficulty negotiating their flexible working application due to an adversarial approach from the clinical lead. According to Dr. X, this negative stance stemmed primarily from a history of strained relations between the two parties.
Dr X’s concern was that they were being coerced into an unfavourable job plan that did not reflect his professional commitments. He explained that their clinical lead had pushed through an arrangement that left Dr X with fewer Programmed Activities and therefore a lower salary than was appropriate. The doctor felt this was not only unfair but also targeted, given his difficult past interactions with the clinical lead.
Dr X approached MDS for help navigating the negotiation process and to achieve a positive resolution without risking further deterioration in professional relationships.
MDS Advisors supported Dr X’s position that the agreed reduction in Programmed Activities should stand, as this had been accepted by HR and the acting clinical lead, and the only objection came from his substantive clinical lead who returned from leave and sought to push for further reductions.
We immediately informed HR that the requested reduction was unreasonable and contradicted the previously approved arrangement. We laid out the full facts, highlighting that the consultant’s need for flexibility was driven by a family emergency, and argued that any further reduction would be punitive and unfair considering the circumstances.
As the clinical lead continued to resist, we escalated the matter to the medical director, setting out the history of strained relations that had influenced her approach. The medical director acknowledged the background and advised that this should be resolved informally to avoid unnecessary complications for the consultant at a time when he required support. The medical director reminded the clinical lead not to delay the approval process or create barriers where the trust had already agreed a way forward.
The clinical lead proceeded to lodge a formal complaint against Dr X, despite the circumstances. The complaint alleged that they had been pressured into approving the job plan. Throughout the process, our Advisors supported Dr X, helping to ensure that their responses were professional and backed by evidence. Consequently, the complaint, which lacked solid supporting evidence, was dismissed following an initial informal investigation.
Following this, the clinical lead resigned from their position and moved to another trust (in part due to wider professional issues unrelated to this case).
By remaining focused on facts and contractual rights, and by escalating the matter at the appropriate time, MDS helped Dr X rights to prevail over personal hostility. Our guidance allowed them to secure a fair and timely resolution, preserve their job plan, and have the false allegations against them formally dismissed without reputational damage.
Flexible working and job planning requests should be addressed on the basis of fairness, evidence, and contractual rights rather than personal dynamics. However, a strained relationship with a clinical lead can distort negotiations and delay outcomes, making it essential for consultants to seek early support and maintain a factual, professional approach when difficulties arise.
Obtaining and preserving clear documentation of what had been agreed can make all the difference in a case where a dispute is between individuals.
Unfounded complaints can serve as a tactic to divert attention in difficult professional relationships. The swift dismissal of the clinical lead’s unsubstantiated complaint confirms the critical role of thorough documentation and consistent professional conduct. It also underscores the need for Trusts to conduct objective and balanced reviews, preventing such complaints from hindering or complicating ongoing proceedings. Consultants can be confident that baseless allegations, lacking factual support, will likely fail, provided their own professional conduct remains uncompromised.
The Trust’s takeaway from this situation is the necessity of early intervention when a clinical lead’s personal animosity impacts the job planning process. To safeguard the contractual process from being overshadowed by personal history, it is crucial to have oversight from HR and/or a medical director. Achieving a fair and transparent resolution not only protected the consultant involved but also successfully prevented the situation from escalating into a lengthy grievance procedure.
More broadly, this case demonstrates the value of timely advice and escalation. By keeping the matter framed around fairness, evidence, the consultant avoided being drawn into a personal dispute and instead achieved a resolution that protected his rights and wellbeing. It also reinforces the principle that while interpersonal conflict may be unavoidable in some workplaces, maintaining professionalism, using proper escalation routes, and relying on evidence are the most effective ways to secure a just outcome.
Find yourself in a similar situation? Contact MDS as soon as possible to discuss your situation, our team will support you in making the best decision for you and your patients. Call our office on 0300 30 32 442 or email or case managers at [email protected] mentioning your membership number.
Not an MDS member? Get in touch and join today!
