The pitfalls of casual conduct during formal processes

Reduce the risk of a claim

In many organisations, swearing has become woven into the everyday culture. It may be used jokingly, as a release of tension or simply as an accepted norm among colleagues. In an informal environment, this rarely raises eyebrows. The problem arises when that same language creeps into formal HR processes. What felt harmless during casual conversation can take on a far more serious meaning when spoken in a disciplinary meeting, grievance hearing or redundancy consultation. Employers who fail to adjust their tone in these settings may find themselves facing claims that could have easily been avoided.

One of the biggest risks lies in the shift of power dynamics. When an employee attends a formal meeting especially one concerning allegations, performance concerns or the potential loss of their job they are typically anxious, vulnerable and acutely aware of the imbalance of authority. In these moments, swearing or overly casual language from a manager or HR representative can feel intimidating or dismissive. Even if unintended, it may appear as though the employer is not taking the process seriously or is attempting to exert pressure.

What a manager perceives as a harmless informality can be interpreted by an employee as belittling, undermining or even coercive. This is precisely where the problem begins: the same words carry a very different weight when spoken from a position of power.

ACAS Code of Practice

These considerations are particularly important when viewed through the lens of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, which places strong emphasis on fairness, professionalism and clarity. While the Code does not specifically prohibit swearing, tribunals often look at conduct through the broader principles it sets out. If a manager uses casual language or swears during a formal meeting, it may be seen as evidence of an inconsistent or unprofessional approach, potentially rendering the entire process unfair. A single inappropriate comment can colour the employee’s perception of fairness and ultimately the tribunal’s.

For example;

To illustrate how this can unfold, consider a redundancy scenario. Suppose an employer initiates a redundancy consultation with an employee and, in an attempt to appear relaxed and “human,” the manager says something like: “Look, this whole situation is a bit of a mess, but we just have to get through this shi*.” In a casual setting, this remark might have seemed harmless; during a formal redundancy consultation, it can be interpreted entirely differently. The employee could later argue that the manager’s language showed a lack of seriousness, poor preparation or even a predetermined outcome. The use of swearing may give the impression that the employer had already made up its mind, or that the process was not handled with the professionalism required. If challenged at tribunal, this type of comment could be used as evidence that the consultation was not meaningful an argument that tribunals take seriously.

Equally, if an employer disciplines an employee for swearing but managers themselves engage in the same behaviour particularly in formal processes, the employee may challenge the consistency of the employer’s approach. Tribunals consider comparators and cultural norms carefully. If swearing is tolerated informally but punished formally, the employer must be able to justify this distinction clearly. Without explanation, the employee may argue that they were singled out or treated unfairly, and the tribunal may agree.

All of this demonstrates why employers must handle informality with care. A relaxed culture may be positive, but it has no place in formal HR procedures. The moment a meeting moves into disciplinary, grievance or redundancy territory, the standard of behaviour must shift. Managers should avoid casual phrasing, emotional outbursts and especially swearing. Professionalism is not about being cold or robotic; it is about ensuring clarity, fairness and respect; all qualities that both tribunals and employees expect as standard.

Swearing can undermine trust

Swearing may seem trivial, but in the structure of a formal HR process it can undermine trust, destabilise the atmosphere and, in some cases, derail the fairness of the entire exercise. Employers who maintain professional boundaries during critical meetings protect not only their culture but also their legal position.

When the tone or language crosses into territory that feels disrespectful, intimidating or unprofessional, the person on the receiving end may raise concerns. If the behaviour continues, or if it becomes clear that the “relaxed” environment was masking a power imbalance, the employer may have no choice but to intervene formally. At this stage, what was once perceived as friendly banter may be reinterpreted as bullying, harassment or inappropriate conduct. The individual engaging in the behaviour can then find themselves subject to disciplinary investigation, even if they believed the relationship was mutually casual.

The key takeaway being, Tribunals and HR processes often emphasise the impact of the behaviour rather than the intent, meaning that good intentions or a history of informality are not sufficient defences.

Ultimately, when boundaries are not maintained, informality can backfire. A relaxed relationship can deteriorate quickly, and the person who thought they were simply being friendly may become the focus of a misconduct allegation highlighting the importance of professionalism and consistency even in workplaces with a casual culture.