Former S4C executive Amanda Rees lodges High Court claim over bullying by ex-CEO Sian Doyle

Martin Shipton

A former senior S4C executive has lodged a High Court claim against the broadcaster, claiming that bullying by its former chief executive Sian Doyle caused her to suffer heart failure and ongoing psychological distress.

Ms Doyle was sacked by S4C in 2023 after a report from law firm Capital Law exposed the extent of her bullying.

Amanda Rees was S4C’s Director of Platforms when Ms Doyle was appointed CEO in December 2021. Ms Doyle’s previous experience had been exclusively in the retail sector and she had not worked in the media or broadcasting industries.

The claim submitted on behalf of Ms Rees states: “Sian Doyle (SD) adopted and demonstrated a management style that was uncompromising, divisive and rigid. She created and fostered a management culture within the Defendant’s organisation that was defined by fear, dissatisfaction and poor leadership. Her attitude stemmed from her own view that the internal culture was a significant risk and a barrier to change.

“The management style she adopted could properly be described as toxic and it was foreseeably harmful to its staff including the Claimant.

“Further, the Claimant was personally subjected to behaviour from SD that was belittling, demeaning and humiliating. It amounted to bullying.

“Further particulars of SD’s management approach and style, within the management meetings, were as follows:-

a) She was confrontational, uncompromising and forceful from the outset.

b) She rigidly demanded and pressurised staff into unwavering loyalty to her. Any criticism was seen as a direct challenge to her leadership and was not tolerated. As a result, she discouraged staff from expressing dissent or from raising grievances.

c) She deliberately and intentionally created a climate of fear, insecurity and anxiety.

d) A phrase she repeatedly used was “shoot one and a thousand will tremble”.

e) In one discussion with the Claimant, when the Claimant suggested that it was necessary to have trust to effect permanent, successful change.

SD replied that she disagreed and “you do not need trust to create change, you need to create anxiety for change”.

f) She humiliated colleagues of the Claimant and dismissed concerns about workplace wellbeing.

g) She managed in a chaotic and autocratic manner.

h) She spoke about employees in a rude, offensive and disparaging manner, discrediting and rubbishing their skills and knowledge. She used derogatory, coarse, demeaning and aggressive language about them.

i) She was highly dismissive of other people’s opinions or their expertise, particularly when they disagreed with her and she would threaten that she would take revenge against them.

j) She was insincere, in that she would compliment employees to their faces but be disparaging about them when they were not present.

k) She had a ‘moratorium’ on any discussion about the past (ie the time before SD became CEO) which discouraged the employees from feeling able to share their knowledge, skills or expertise which, in any event, SD perceived as worthless.

“The early months of SD’s management led to the Claimant experiencing increasing uncertainty and stress. She was afraid for the Defendant’s employees and uncomfortable that SD’s management was not challenged by the rest of the management team.”

Meaningful supervision

Ms Rees raised her concerns about the management style, approach and behaviour of SD with other members of the management team on multiple occasions, but SD’s behaviour did not change. According to Ms Rees, no effective or meaningful supervision was exercised by the Board over SD.

Exit interviews were not routinely offered to leavers and the previous annual staff survey was purposefully delayed during the first 16 months of SD’s leadership, to avoid receiving negative feedback.

Ms Rees’s claim states: “As a result, SD’s behaviour continued unchecked and in an untrammelled fashion.

“The Claimant continued to be very concerned and fearful for the welfare of the employees. Moreover, the Claimant was personally subjected to unfair, humiliating treatment from SD. The following are examples of that behaviour:

a) In January 2022, at a management away day, there was a discussion about the roles of the members of the management team. Half of the Claimant’s job functions were written on a post-it note. SD asked, with reference to the post-it note and in front of the entire team “Now, who are we going to get to do this?”

b) This was belittling and humiliating for the Claimant. It seemed that SD expected that someone else would take over the Claimant’s roles and no-one could challenge that, including the Claimant.

c) She felt helpless and experienced a racing heart. She struggled to maintain her composure and was deeply shaken. The Claimant reported what had happened to HR, offering to rewrite her own job description to clarify her position, but was informed that this was unnecessary.

d) In February 2022 the Claimant discovered that her role was being reclassified so that she was an ‘observer’ rather than a full member of the senior management team. This was, effectively, a demotion. The Claimant raised concerns about this with SD and HR and the change was not ultimately implemented. However, the Claimant felt undermined, uncertain about her position in the Defendant’s organisation and increasingly anxious about the future.

e) Shortly thereafter, the Claimant discovered an internal job advertisement listing many of the duties that had previously been hers.

f) In April 2022 Geraint Evans was given that post and assumed much of the Claimant’s original role as a result. The Claimant was humiliated, demoralised and felt devalued.

g) She would be dismissive of the Claimant’s input. On one occasion in a conversation about commissioning, in a Senior Leadership Team (SLT) meeting, she stopped the Claimant mid-sentence holding her raised palm towards the Claimant saying “Enough, I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to hear about the past anymore” leaving the room in silence. This was deeply humiliating for the Claimant.

“Moreover, the management style of SD led to widespread demoralisation, fear and anxiety within the workforce which:

a) SD and the rest of the SLT and/or the Board knew or ought to have known would occur;

b) Which the Claimant objected to and complained about; and

c) Which SD and/or the rest of the SLT and/or the Board knew or ought to have known created a foreseeable risk of harm for the Claimant.

“ In April 2022 SD recruited a new Chief Content Officer, Llinos Griffin-Williams. Ms Griffin-Williams adopted a similar leadership style to SD, which both accelerated the pace of change and served to make the corporate culture increasingly toxic.

“The morale of staff visibly declined and attempts to raise concerns were met with indifference. The Claimant complained to HR on a number of occasions about the impact of the leadership on the employees of the Defendant, but no action was taken.

“Intimidation and division were deliberately fostered by SD and Ms Griffin-Williams. SD expressed herself as desiring loyalty from senior staff members, asking whether they were ‘with her or not’.

“Over the ensuing months, the Claimant felt conflicted between a leadership team that demanded absolute compliance and staff members who confided in her, some in tears, describing their fear and frustration. One member of staff suffered a severe mental health crisis following a conversation with the Claimant about their concerns.

“The Claimant was, as part of the SLT, responsible for the welfare of the Defendant’s employees. However, despite knowing that the employees were themselves suffering, she felt powerless to protect them from the culture being created by SD. The stress weighed on her constantly.

“By October 2022 the Claimant was struggling to cope. As a result of her stress, she discussed with HR about the possibility of reducing her hours to a three day week.”

BECTU

Around November 2022, members of the BECTU trade union raised concerns about the unhealthy work environment at S4C. The most common word used by BECTU members to describe the atmosphere was “toxic”.

An email sent to Ms Doyle by BECTU stated: “It’s clear to us that these issues are contributing to an unprecedented turnover of staff and low morale. Indeed, such is the level of fear within the organisation at the moment, many members are reluctant to come forward with individual grievances for fear of victimisation.”

Ms Rees’s claim states: “It is contended that long before receipt of that email it was or should have been obvious to SD and/or the Board that the working environment was excessively stressful and foreseeably likely to lead to the development of psychiatric injuries within the Defendant’s workforce, including within the SLT itself.”

Around this time, Ms Rees also spoke to Geraint Pugh, the Secretary to the Chairman of the Board, Rhodri Williams. She told Mr Pugh that she believed that SD’s leadership style was a fundamental risk to people and to the organisation. She informed Mr Pugh of SD’s opinion that anxiety was required to create change and repeated SD’s oft-utilised phrase “shoot one and a thousand will tremble”.

Mr Pugh stated that the Claimant was not the only person to share such concerns but said that he (and implicitly the Board) found it frustrating that no-one was prepared to submit a formal complaint about her and until that occurred, the Board would find it difficult to act. Ms Rees said to Mr Pugh that staff, including herself, were scared to talk for fear of repercussions.

Ms Doyle opposed bringing in external consultants to investigate, but an internal “listening exercise” took place, feedback from which was critical of her management style as problematic. It was said, amongst other things, that SD was dismissive of the expertise of staff, was not willing to listen to others’ opinion and that employees were fearful of her because she would “turn on them” for challenging her and that she accused people of not wanting to change to dissuade them from raising objections.

The claim states: “On 15 February 2023, the Claimant discovered that a job was being advertised externally that included the Claimant’s responsibilities for the insight/analysis team. The Claimant had taken on those responsibilities in September 2022 following the departure of a colleague, Owen Derbyshire, but the Claimant had not been informed that they were going to be removed from her within a short period of time. The Claimant raised the concerns in writing to SD and HR but SD dismissed her complaints in a brief telephone call. The Claimant felt upset and worthless.

“On 21 and 22 February 2023 the Claimant attended two away days with the management team at Llangrannog. On the evening of 21 February, a discussion took place between SD, the Claimant, Geraint Evans and Llinos Griffin-Williams in which SD stated that she wanted to terminate all the commissioning team’s contracts because she believed they were awkward and hostile and she wanted a change. The Claimant disagreed, stating that there was a lot of experience amongst the commissioning team but SD stated: ‘No, fuck them, I want to get rid of them’.

“The Claimant was very upset about SD’s dismissive attitude towards others and spoke that night to her husband, in tears, about SD.

“During a session the next day, 22 February 2023, a facilitated discussion took place about change management and where the staff were in relation to the changes that were being implemented. When this was being discussed amongst the entire management team, the Claimant insisted that the fault was with the management team, not with the employees. The discussion became animated and, in the course of it, SD stated that a lot of the staff did not have the skills or knowledge to be able to justify being in their jobs and that she would not care if half the workforce left.

“The Claimant was visibly upset by this comment. No other member of the SLT challenged SD. The Claimant felt there was nothing she could do to influence SD’s approach and attitude towards the Defendant’s employees and she left the session, distressed and emotional.

“She began to experience acute pains in her chest and back and felt sick and dizzy. Her right hand turned blue. That afternoon she raised her symptoms with the management team and was encouraged to go to hospital. She had suffered heart failure due to stress.

“The Claimant took sickness absence from the Defendant and never returned. She resigned in October 2023.”

Reputational harm

The claim states: “Pre-trauma, the Claimant was confident and a well-regarded media professional, working at the highest levels of programme commissioning and strategic leadership. Her work was a central part of her identity and her social life.

“She is frustrated by her inability to progress in her career and upset about the professional opportunities that she has lost and reputational harm that she has suffered. She is excessively conflict avoidant and hypervigilant.

“She suffers episodic, recurring traumatic memories of what happened to her, including how she was treated by SD and the distress experienced by the employees for whom she had a responsibility. She remains very upset about the lack of oversight demonstrated by the Board and the lack of support from HR. The memories of the events are intrusive and difficult to suppress.

“Her symptoms are easily triggered, particularly because of the close knit nature of the media industry in Cardiff means she is frequently in contact with individuals or other things which remind of her past experiences. She feels betrayed by the Defendant.”