G. Conclusion
174. As I said at the outset, this report is the product of my investigation into the facts surrounding the Complaints. It states, to the extent consistent with upholding the principle of confidentiality, my findings of fact. I reiterate the importance, for a proper understanding of the subject-matter, of reading the report as a whole.
175. As set out in paragraphs 53 and 57 above, for the purpose of this investigation under the Ministerial Code, conduct would fall within the description of 'bullying' if it can be characterised as:
- (1) Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or
- (2) Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient[1].
176. In summary, I have found as follows:
- (1) In relation to the DExEU Complaint:
- (a) The DPM's conduct cannot be characterised as offensive, malicious or insulting. It was experienced as intimidating, in the sense of excessively demanding. I could not make a finding as to whether it was in fact intimidating in this sense. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse or misuse of power.
- (b) The DPM did not intend any adverse effect on others.
- (c) No-one drew to the DPM's attention that his conduct was in any way problematic.
- (d) He did not know and could not reasonably have been aware of what is said to have been the impact of his conduct on certain individuals.
- (2) In relation to the FCDO Complaint:
- (a) The DPM made a legitimate management choice, on the basis of his genuine, adverse view about the work of others (albeit without any grounds for disciplinary action).
- ↑ None of the constituent elements of this accepted characterisation of bullying is a legally defined term. All of the words used are capable of a range of interpretations. Where relevant, I have explained the sense in which I have used any of these words.
44
