Verdant Purpose HR

Sometimes, charities have that one person everyone tiptoes around.
The one who talks over others, blocks change, questions decisions, and somehow makes every meeting about themselves.

You tell yourself it’s “just their way.”
You avoid the confrontation because they’re “too experienced to lose.”
And before you know it, your whole organisation is walking on eggshells.

I worked with a charity in that exact position; a head office employee who quietly ran the place by fear and manipulation.

They weren’t shouting or swearing. They didn’t break rules.
But they controlled the pace of everything, rewrote decisions, and wore down anyone who tried to challenge them.

Good people were burning out. Volunteers and Trustees were quitting. The board was losing confidence.

And the worst part? Everyone knew it, but no one acted.

The turning point

By the time I was brought in, they were on their third set of trustees, and 80% of their volunteer base had left in the last year. 
The CEO felt powerless.
And the trustees were split, half wanted to act, half were terrified of legal risk.

Because that’s what charities fear most: the reserves-draining tribunal headline, not the internal damage.

So we started by stripping away the emotion and focusing on what matters: evidence, fairness, and law.

We documented behaviours.
We checked whether expectations had been clear.
We reviewed policies, probation records, and prior feedback.

It was about protection, for the cause, for the staff, and for the reputation of the charity.

Within a few weeks, the board had a clear, lawful route forward.
The employee was exited fairly and respectfully.

And the change was instant.
The tension lifted.
Meetings felt lighter.
People started smiling again.

One toxic employee had been holding an entire mission hostage.

A few months later, one trustee said to me "It's like they were never here!"

Why dealing with toxicity makes you a great leader

The Chartered Management Institute (2023) found that one toxic employee can make over half of their colleagues consider leaving.
And Harvard Business Review has written for years about the “contagion effect,” how disruptive behaviours spread three times faster than positive ones.

So when you ignore toxic behaviour, you’re not avoiding conflict; you’re endorsing it.

And in a charity, the cost is higher.
Because your best people aren’t staying for a pay rise, they’re staying for purpose, for the love of what you do.
When that purpose starts to feel compromised, they leave quietly and never come back.

If you’re a trustee or CEO, the question isn’t whether you can afford to deal with toxicity.
It’s whether you can afford not to.

The five lawful ways to dismiss an employee (and when each applies)

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, there are five fair and lawful reasons for dismissal.
They apply just as much in charities as in any other organisation.
The key is fairness, process matters as much as reason.

Let’s walk through them, plainly and practically. 

Conduct

This is when behaviour breaches trust, for example, bullying, dishonesty, or insubordination.
In the case I handled, the issue wasn’t overt misconduct; it was persistent disruption.
They ignored instructions, questioned authority, and undermined colleagues.

You don’t need to wait for something dramatic.
Repeated refusal to follow reasonable direction counts as misconduct when it’s documented and addressed properly. The best processes are ones where everything is documented, and the employee has a chance to know their behaviour is wrong, and have opportunity to improve.

What ACAS says: You must investigate thoroughly, give the employee a chance to respond, and follow a clear disciplinary process.

Verdant Verdict: Fairness isn’t softness. It’s your legal shield.

Capability or performance

Sometimes people can’t meet the standard required, even with support. They might not have the skill, focus, or mindset for the role.

That’s where performance management comes in: clear objectives, feedback, and documented support.
If improvement doesn’t happen, you may have grounds to dismiss based on capability.

CIPD guidance (2023) is clear: it’s fair to end employment if a reasonable support plan has failed and expectations were transparent.

Verdant Verdict: Support first, yes, but don’t confuse compassion with avoidance.

Redundancy

When a role no longer exists or the organisation restructures, redundancy can be fair, provided it’s genuine and process-driven.
In charities, this often arises after funding changes or organisational reviews.

ACAS reminder: Redundancy isn’t about the person; it’s about the role. Selection must be objective, consultation genuine, and alternatives considered.

Verdant Verdict: Redundancy shouldn’t be used to sidestep behaviour or performance issues. It’s about honesty, not convenience.

Statutory illegality

This one’s straightforward: you can’t employ someone if doing so would break the law.
For example, loss of right to work, expired licence, or safeguarding clearance failure.

It’s rare, but in regulated charity sectors (care, education, animal welfare), it matters deeply.

Verdant Verdict: Always check compliance early; prevention is kinder than dismissal.

Some other substantial reason (SOSR)

This is the “catch-all,” used when none of the other four fit, but the reason is still serious and fair.

In charities, this might cover:

• An irreparable breakdown in working relationships
• Loss of trust between a manager and trustees
• Conflict of interest that can’t be resolved

SOSR shouldn't be the default go-to, as what you're facing might fit better under one of the other fair reasons.

ACAS confirms: SOSR dismissals must still follow a fair process: clear evidence, meeting, chance to respond, and right of appeal.

Verdant Verdict: It’s your last resort, not a loophole. Use it with care and documentation.

What happens when you get it right

When the charity finally acted, the change was immediate.
Productivity rose.
Decision-making sped up.
The CEO regained confidence.

And the board learned something vital:
They hadn’t failed by exiting that person, they’d protected everyone else who still believed in the mission.

Because sometimes, the kindest thing you can do is let someone go.

Why trustees need to understand this

Trustees often see HR issues as “operational.” They’re not.

When one person’s behaviour starts to threaten your charity’s effectiveness, that’s a governance issue.
The Charity Commission expects trustees to manage risk, and people risk is no exception.

Failing to act doesn’t just damage morale; it can expose you legally and reputationally.

If your charity is struggling with a difficult employee, don’t wait for crisis.
Act fairly, document everything, and seek advice early.

You don’t have to do it alone, but you do have to do it.

The Verdant Verdict

Toxic behaviour doesn’t go away on its own. It either grows, or it leaves. But leaving it, in the hope that it leaves is a risky move.

And as uncomfortable as it feels, good governance sometimes means having hard conversations with grace and legality.

At Verdant Purpose HR, I help charities navigate exactly that: turning fear of conflict into confident, lawful action that protects the mission.

So if someone in your charity is blocking progress, it’s not too late to fix it, fairly, calmly, and legally.

Sign up to the Verdant Purpose HR newsletter to get practical tools like the Difficult Conversations Pack, real stories from the sector, and monthly guidance to help you lead with confidence, even in the hard moments.

Because protecting your charity’s mission sometimes means protecting it from the wrong people.