A Taste of What’s Coming
The quotes below are taken directly from grievance letters, Occupational Health reports, and formal meeting notes.
Some were written. Others were said aloud and recorded in official documents.
All of them came from Greggs managers, HR, or advisers.
They may seem out of context at first glance, but make no mistake:
This is just a small preview.
It doesn’t even touch on the undocumented payroll deductions, the wider payroll chaos, or the many other unresolved issues.
The full archive, including all source documents, will be released when the site fully launches.
Imagine what the full story reveals.
“A return to work may be achievable within the next 4 to 8 weeks… ideally day shifts only.”
Occupational Health recommendation ignored.
-OH Report (31/10/2023)
“The OH report is outdated.” - “The job’s the job.”
This was said before my return had even begun.
-June 2024 - Return to Work Meeting
“Undue delay in dealing with work-related issues or stressors often results in a deterioration of mental health, long-term sickness absence, and even chronic embitterment.”
Greggs delayed Stage 1 of my grievance outcome by 155 days. (Senior Manager had viewed the OH report)
-OH Report (12/09/2024)
“The phased return had ended because you broke it by going off sick.”
I caught COVID.
-August 2024 - Welfare Review Meeting
“One possible outcome could be dismissal.”
That was written in my grievance outcome letter, March 2025. (155 days after submitting it)
-March 2025 - Grievance Outcome Warning
“We failed to embed a supportive phased return and caused unnecessary disruption and stress.”
Grievance partially upheld. Too late.
-May 2025 - Stage 2 Outcome
“Stage 1 senior manager had taken over a new role at the start of this year and admits to struggling to process the investigation and respond to you in a reasonable time frame.”
Greggs’ explanation for taking 155 days to respond to my grievance, despite clear Occupational Health warnings. Stage 1 submitted 14th October 2024 - Stage 1 Outcome Received 18 March 2025
-May 2025 - Stage 2 Grievance Outcome
I’d heard the term gaslighting before, but never truly understood what it meant until someone read my Greggs Stage 1 grievance outcome and told me I’d been “properly gaslit.” That comment stuck with me. I started researching what gaslighting looks like in workplace settings, and suddenly it all clicked.
What I’d experienced wasn’t just poor communication or bad HR it was something far more damaging. I always knew the Stage 1 investigation was shockingly inadequate, not least the 155-day delay between submitting my formal grievance and receiving the first outcome. But I hadn’t fully grasped just how manipulative and undermining it really was until recently.
No wonder I felt the way I did. No wonder I eventually resigned. Its one of the moments that changed how I saw everything. It’s part of why I built InsideGreggs.co.uk: to document what happened, share the evidence, and show how easy it is for a company to undermine someone without ever raising their voice.
The quotes below are taken directly from the official grievance outcome letter I received from Greggs in March 2025. Each one left me feeling dismissed, blamed, or emotionally undermined. When I started to look into it properly, I realised this wasn’t just poor process. Had I been 'Gaslit?'
Have I Been Gaslit ?
Denying Responsibility for Financial Harm
❝ I fail to attribute our business processes as the root cause and would highlight your extended absence and subsequent expiry of sick credits/pay and SSP as the primary factor. ❞
- Stage 1 Grievance Outcome Letter
Reality: Greggs had already admitted to multiple payroll errors, including a large unexplained deduction and repeated failures to process my sick notes correctly which directly affected my entitlement to pay and triggered benefit problems.
Why it matters: By shifting the blame onto my health, Greggs ignored the real-world impact their own mistakes had on me and my family. I wasn’t just off sick, I was battling serious illness while trying to survive on broken systems. This kind of deflection made me question my own reality and left me feeling invisible at my most vulnerable.
Framing Delays and Errors as Personal Reluctance
❝ Despite your stated desire to return to work, all offers to facilitate this have been met with reluctance. ❞
- Stage 1 Grievance Outcome Letter
Reality: My return was repeatedly delayed by Greggs’ failure to follow Occupational Health advice, refusal to offer shorter shifts, and lack of clear communication about what would happen next. I asked for support, I didn’t refuse it.
Why it matters: When you’re trying to come back after a heart attack, being painted as reluctant for raising valid safety concerns is more than unfair, it’s gaslighting. I was being cautious because I wanted to return safely and stay in work. Instead, Greggs flipped the narrative and blamed me for the very delays their own decisions caused.
“You Should Have Raised It Sooner”
❝ While some irregularities were acknowledged, it was surprising you had not raised this at the time with the operational team. ❞
- Stage 1 Grievance Outcome Letter
Reality: I had just suffered a heart attack, was trying to navigate a complex and stressful return to work, and had already raised concerns, repeatedly, including in formal meetings and emails. The errors were not minor, and the responsibility to fix them lay with the employer.
Why it matters: This kind of response is classic deflection. It downplays serious mistakes and suggests that my timing was the real issue and not the errors themselves. I was dealing with physical recovery, emotional stress, and unclear communication. Being told I should’ve spoken up sooner isn’t just unfair, it’s another way of blaming the person already harmed.
Invalidating My Feelings
❝ I am sorry that you feel that way. ❞
- Stage 1 Grievance Outcome Letter
Why this matters:
This isn’t an apology! This response sidesteps accountability by shifting focus from the facts to my feelings. It’s a well-known technique used to invalidate legitimate concerns without engaging with them and it left me questioning the legitimacy of my own experience.
Minimising Proven Barriers
❝ While I recognise that there were challenges, I do not believe they were significant enough to prevent your return. ❞
- Stage 1 Grievance Outcome Letter
Why this matters:
This line reduced a complex, medically guided phased return, one that was ignored and poorly handled to something minor and manageable. It dismissed the entire impact of miscommunication, stress, and fatigue as if it was nothing. That made me question whether I was overreacting, even though I wasn’t.
Encouraging Me to Just “Move On”
❝ I hope that you will be satisfied with the outcome of your grievance and are able to put the matter behind you and move forward in a positive manner. ❞
- Stage 1 Grievance Outcome Letter
Why this matters:
This came after a 155-day delay and an outcome letter that misrepresented key facts. Being told to move on when nothing had been resolved felt like they were closing the door without ever opening it properly. It implied that the problem was done, even if I was still living with the effects.
A personal account of employment failings at Greggs PLC
This site is a work in progress.
Content is being updated regularly as evidence is reviewed, redacted, and prepared for publication.
Document uploads are currently in process and will be available soon. Thank you for your patience as I ensure everything is shared responsibly, accurately, and in the public interest.
Raising awareness - Seeking accountability
Disclaimer:
This website presents a factual account based on my personal experience as an employee of Greggs PLC. All content is derived from official grievance correspondence, internal records, and meeting notes that I was directly involved in.
To protect individual privacy, all full names have been redacted. Initials and job titles may be used to aid clarity and maintain an accurate timeline of events, but these do not identify any individual unless the information is already in the public domain.
This website is entirely independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Greggs PLC.
Every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented is accurate, lawful, and respectful. Some quotes and excerpts may appear without full context, as complete documents are still being prepared for publication. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, but minor errors or omissions may exist. All material is presented in good faith. This site is not intended to harass, defame, or target any individual, but to raise awareness of serious unresolved concerns after internal processes failed to provide fair resolution.
If you believe any material on this site raises a legitimate privacy concern, please use the contact form to request a review.
This site may be updated, revised, or withdrawn at any time without prior notice.
