Welcome to the Community, Gemma... and for an important and challenging first post.

Sorry to hear of your recent experience. I think much has been written about flat structures... but perhaps in a quasi-academic way... slightly removed from the reality, which your post highlights with clarity.

This article is a very good critique and suggests flat structures will fail as they grow:

Nails in the Coffin: Why a Flat Organizational Structure Fails

It argues that in the absence of a formal hierarchy, a "secret implicit structure" takes over. This might have been the case with your situation.

There does appear to have been a real failure of due process here... although it does remind me of recent discussions we've had in the context of start-ups.

I'd be interested to hear more of the (non) role of the HR person.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Thank you for that link. On my quest for knowledge, I've actually come across it previously but thank you as it's always worth re-reading the article for any missed pieces of knowledge!

There's quite a lot of information available it would seem about the struggles but I haven't been able to find much relating to the role of the HR function and how HR practices are/should be followed.

Gemma out of interest how much service did you have ? I am assuming less than two years? Whilst far from a "get out of jail free card" many employers do play slightly faster and looser with some things during that period.

You mention you were the only female - do you think this is relevant?

As to the substance of your questions - HR are now in most places the architects of the employment relationship rather than the custodians or law bringers. They (we) design the structures and the framework within which managers manage. In a flat structure I would not expect them to arbitrate or rule on a dismissal but to create a fair process where by team disputes (such as this one) can be fairly and reasonably resolved. They (or someone else in the limited hierarchy) may have the role before dismissal to sense check any dismissal but I think normally this would be someone in the hierarchy.

Clearly issuing a written warning without process shows that architecture wasn't in place which is a real concern.

In reply to Keith:

Hi Keith

I had just under 1 years service.

The HR function was involved in this case in issuing the warning but it was all decided within an hour of the complaint being raised. I am aware that companies do cut lose and fast when under the 2 years service as I've used this mechanism myself after looking to HR for guidance.

I feel that the complaint raised would not have been raised against one of the male colleagues given some of the things that go on within the team and when appealing the warning, I issued a complaint of that nature. I felt I was being treated differently because I was female. Certain behaviours were acceptable from the male members of the team but when it's perceived that I have stepped out of line, I am issued with what I feel was an unwarranted and unfair warning by my colleagues and HR.

I was dismissed 2 weeks later for poor fit and when I asked to cover the reasons of that, they said things like poor performance, lack of product knowledge and this particular issue with my colleague. It all felt like a bit of witch hunt in the end. There had been no performance issues and in fact, I had performed better than other colleagues. They then decided that the reason for the dismissal was redundancy because of a restructure and I was advised there was no point in appealing as we'd end up in exactly the same position.

I had assumed that although we operated a flat structure, there would still be processes in place that would align with UK employment law. I did not believe that the absence of a management structure would exclude them from normal law practices.

In reply to Gemma:

Of course it doesn't and no one said it would...

You can of course appeal to an ET if you believe the real reason or the underlying reason for your dismissal was your gender.

In reply to Keith:

Of course, I wasn't implying that it was said here. But I did wonder having gone through the process (or lack of) that I've been through.

I have raised a claim with the ET. I did speak with a solicitor in the first instance and they attempted to contact my employer but the declined to speak about it and also declined the ACAS conciliation so I felt I had no choice. Costly and emotional process though so what I am trying to do is educate myself on how the HR function should operate within a flat structure.

In reply to Gemma:

I feel the warning was gender but the dismissal I feel was because I raised a grievance.