For many workers, it is the stuff of nightmares. The idea that private WhatsApp messages complaining about your boss have been read by the very person being discussed.

But last year what would be an anxious fever dream for many an office employee became a reality for a group of women working for Liverpool’s pre-eminent literature festival and organisation, Writing on the Wall (WOW).

It was September 2 and as was customary, some of the close-knit group of all female employees at WOW were heading out for lunch after a busy morning’s work at the organisation’s base in the Toxteth Library building on Windsor Street, a stone’s throw from Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral.

When the women returned to the small office, which they worked in alongside WOW’s two co-directors, something didn’t feel right. One of the women believed someone had been using her computer because the screen was tilted at an angle she hadn’t left it at. More concerningly, she believed someone had been looking at the WhatsApp web application on her computer.

Like many people, the workers at WOW used WhatsApp for both work and private messages. They say they were required to use the application for work purposes but were never given business accounts, so did this through their own personal accounts.

“From that moment we felt a sudden change in the atmosphere in the office,” says Shahrzad Akbar, who was a project worker at WOW at the time. She and her former colleagues are speaking out publicly for the first time to the ECHO.

“Shortly after we were told by the directors to all go downstairs to check on a broken projector,” she adds. “This wasn’t normal. We would usually be told this was a one person job plus it was something I had checked the day before but they suddenly wanted us to check it again.”

“We felt the atmosphere change”

Rachael Hankin, a project co-ordinator at the time, was on holiday but was getting updates on the suddenly tense mood in the office from her co-workers and friends. “The vibes were terrible,” she said, as her colleagues anxiously fretted about the prospect of the directors reading the contents of a private WhatsApp group made up of current and former colleagues, and where complaints about management were regularly shared.

“I thought they were being paranoid,” adds Rachael, “I thought there was no way anyone would do that. But when I got back to the office myself, things felt very weird. The bosses were no longer coming in and saying good morning to us.”

The bosses in question are Writing on the Wall’s co-directors Mike Morris, a Liverpool-based writer and playwright and Madeline Heneghan, his fellow co-director, who joined the organisation five years later.

Borne out of the city’s dockers strike, the festival is now the longest-running and most well-known literature event in the city. Throughout the month of May each year, WOWFest offers up a programme of local, national and international writers, artists and performers at events. The festival prides itself on being inclusive, radical and progressive and in raising up voices that are often overlooked – from supporting women suffering with domestic abuse to helping to develop skills for the long-term unemployed.

When approached for a response, the directors referred us to the registered charity’s trustees, who sent a very long and detailed response disputing large parts of the women’s story. The organisation’s website lists eight trustees in total.

On the issue of the WhatsApp messages, the organisation is adamant that no employee’s personal phone or device was accessed and that the material in question was already visible on WhatsApp Web on a workplace computer in a shared office environment.

A spokesperson told us that the content “visible on screen raised serious concerns to professional conduct, workplace relationships, dignity at work, respect for colleagues and trustees and the functioning of the organisation.”

WOW claimed that the content contained multiple examples of “inappropriate workplace conduct that may constitute bullying, harassment, exclusionary behaviour and/or the creation of a hostile working environment.” A spokesperson suggested the tone of the messages went “way beyond ordinary workplace disagreement and may reasonably be interpreted as targeting individuals in a demeaning, intimidating, or exclusionary manner.”

The women we spoke to reject this characterisation, stating that the majority of the comments in the group referred to what they believed to be a “hostile environment” in the office, with complaints about how they were treated by the directors.

Jenny Dalton worked for WOW for five years, becoming an integral part of the small team which organises not just the festival but many other writing projects and workshops throughout the year.

“I will start by saying that I loved my job and the work that we did,” explains the 27-year-old who ran the organisation’s marketing and publishing arms. “I loved working with writers and sharing their work for the first time, I really valued that.”

But she claims that the working environment could often be made difficult by the directors and the expectations put on staff, adding: “We would often be overworked and overwhelmed. I effectively did the job of two departments. We worked for a creative organisation but we felt like we weren’t really allowed to talk to each other in the office because of comments that would be made.”

When Rachael started her job with WOW in September 2024, she had a really good feeling. “I have always worked in arts and culture and I like the values that the organisation stated that it had.

“But after about a month I started to notice issues with the environment and the culture of micro-management. It felt really oppressive. I had never worked in a set-up like this, where the directors were sat directly next to the small team of staff.”

A WOW spokesperson told us: “We recognise that individuals may experience workplace pressures differently and we do not dismiss those perceptions. However, Trustees and external advisors reviewed substantial evidence demonstrating positive workplace practices, flexibility arrangements, and staff support measures over a sustained period which counters the accusations of WoW as a systematically oppressive or hostile working environment.”

They said that prior to the WhatsApp incident, there is “is evidence of consistent and positive support and supervision being undertaken with staff and no issues were raised during 121 meetings or appraisals up until August 2025.”

The organisation added: “At no time was any informal concern or formal grievances, alleging bullying, discrimination, oppressive management, or unsafe working conditions raised or even suggested to trustees, the external and independent HR provider, or through the organisation’s formal grievance or whistleblowing procedures.” The organisation claims the allegation that staff were unable to speak to one another in the office has not been supported by other staff and office visitors.

The former employees told us they had tried to raise concerns through a former staff member who had acted as a layer between them and the directors. When that person left, they said they didn’t feel comfortable going directly to the directors.

Shahrzad also felt positively about the role when she started. Having come from a background of big organisations in the cultural sector, she was excited to get to work in a smaller team focussed on community and grassroots work.

“But as soon as I started something didn’t feel right for me,” she says. “I experienced controlling behaviour, bullying and discrimination.” Shahrzad, who is originally from Iran, claims she was being treated differently to her white British colleagues, being asked about cultural issues or accents, adding: “There were some jokes made that were not quite right. It had a big effect on my confidence.”

Both Jenny and Rachael testify that they witnessed this behaviour towards their colleague. “I found it very uncomfortable,” adds Rachael.”

WOW points out that it has a “long-standing public record of anti-racist, equality-focused and community based work”, adding: “WoW strongly rejects allegations of discriminatory conduct, including allegations relating to mocking accents, nationality, ethnicity, or first language. These allegations are extremely serious and were considered during the grievance process. Trustees did not identify evidence substantiating those claims within the material reviewed.”

HR meetings begin

It was just over two weeks after the women feared their private WhatsApp group had been accessed, and read, that reality hit home in dramatic fashion.

“I had picked Shahrzad up on the way into work,” explains Rachael. “We got an email from Mike saying he was doing security checks on our computers. Then when we sat down he emailed us straight away, telling us to clear our calendars and that someone from an external human resources company had come in to speak to us about a matter requiring urgent attention. He said these would be informal chats.”

Jenny hadn’t long finished reading the email when she was the first to be taken downstairs to a small, glass-panelled meeting room in the public entrance area of the Toxteth Library building. She didn’t realise at this point that the glass panels would mean the many people passing into the building would soon see her in floods of tears.

“There was a lady in the room from the HR company, she asked me if I was in a WhatsApp group and started asking pointed questions about this group. “She read out a bunch of messages from me in the group, all taken wildly out of context.”

“Most of the comments in the group chat were about the environment we were working in,” claims Shahrzad. “But we never got asked about our shared experiences, instead messages were hand picked, without any context.”

There were six employees in total taken into the HR meetings. As well as Rachael, Shahrzad and Jenny there was 60-year-old Lyn Papadopoulos, who was not available when we carried out the main interviews with the three other women but joined them for photographs and has entirely supported their version of events. Two other women had different journeys with the organisation and did not speak to the ECHO for this piece. All six were in the WhatsApp group and all sat together with the directors in the office.

“We all cried in those meetings,” recalls Shahrzad. “I ended up in the toilet with the library manager having a full, crying panic attack,” adds Jenny. “I wish that was the only time I cried in that bathroom.”

Over the weeks that followed that emotional day, the women said their concerns about their treatment remained – particularly in how they believed Shahrzad was being treated. This led Rachael and Sharhzad to contact then chair of trustees, Stuart Borthwick, to raise these concerns and ask for a meeting with him and another board member. Mr Borthwick has since stepped back from his role for unrelated reasons.

They claim that the response that came back stated this would not be appropriate because of the ongoing investigation into them. “This was the first time any of us knew there was an active investigation.”

A WOW spokesperson told us that “given the seriousness of the material” that had been observed in the WhatsApp group, the matter was referred into formal HR procedures to the board and under external professional advice, in according with procedures. They said it would have been “wholly inappropriate” for the organisation to ignore the communications or fail to consider whether disciplinary procedures needed to be initiated.

The fact that the women were very much under investigation was confirmed on October 17, when they were all emailed by the same HR company, inviting them to investigation update meetings the following Monday morning.

“We said we weren’t going into any meetings until we understood what it was all about,” says Rachael. “We needed to know what we were stepping into. Several of us have ADHD and it is really difficult to be blindsided with questions,” adds Shahrzad.

Ahead of those meetings, the women decided to submit what they believed was a formal grievance on behalf of the staff to all of the organisation’s trustees. They say the email was acknowledged by Mr Borthwick, who told them someone would be in touch.

WOW told the ECHO that although concerns were raised informally during October and November, a formal collective grievance was not submitted until 18 December by the staff. Prior to this, they said employees had been advised by the external HR provider that clarification was required regarding the precise scope of the grievance and who it related to.

When Monday came around, Jenny was the only person who went into the office, as Shahrzad and Rachael waited in the library downstairs for their meetings.

“When I went into my meeting, there were two HR people. The woman said an investigation had taken place and I was accused of gross misconduct. I said when was this investigation? As far as I was concerned no proper procedures had been followed.”

At this point the woman made Jenny what she termed a ‘without prejudice’ offer, saying she could leave the organisation with a truthful reference and a couple of months’ pay as long as she signed a non-disclosure agreement not to speak about the organisation.

“I was then told I was being sent home with three days to make a decision. I left that same room where everyone could see me crying again, went back to the office to get my things where I was not acknowledged – and went home.”

Rachael, Shahrzad and Lyn were all then made the same offers – which they would all go on to reject. “We were told we were not allowed to meet up and discuss it but of course we did,” recalls Jenny. “We went straight from those meetings to the pub and just sat in silence. We were shell-shocked.”

By the end of October, the stress of the situation had caused three of the four women we met to go on sick leave. Having attempted to go back to work for a couple of weeks, Jenny then did the same.

Following the gross misconduct charges being levelled, the four women were all invited to disciplinary meetings. At the same time Rachael says she was desperately trying to get a response to the grievance that they had raised.

“We got three invites to hearings but kept having to point out issues with what they were trying to do. I pointed out that they hadn’t followed any of the steps in their own policies,” says Jenny.

Having sought help and guidance from various sources, they enlisted the help of The Community Advice Service Association (CASA) – a city centre organisation set up by former Liverpool dockworkers which aims to help those fighting “injustice and discrimination.”

Taking up their case was Eileen Turnbull, known for her work on the Shrewsbury 24 justice campaign and former dockworker and CASA co-founder Tony Nelson – who arranged mediation meetings with the organisation.

Eventually the grievance was acknowledged and a hearing took place with trustees and the organisation’s external HR advisers on January 15. The women’s grievance was rejected along with a subsequent appeal in February.

A WOW spokesperson told us: “Following review of the evidence by independent HR personal, the trustees concluded that there was no evidence to support their allegation and that organisation’s HR procedures had been appropriately followed and therefore the grievance was not upheld. The subsequent appeal reached the same conclusion with a different panel of trustees and independent HR advisors.”

A public campaign

By this point, the plight of the women had become widely known in the cultural circles of Liverpool and beyond. An open letter was produced, with 382 people signing it stating that while they were “fully supportive of Writing on the Wall’s ethos and work” they were also “very concerned to learn of the position of four women of WOW who have raised concerns about their working environment.”

“We call upon the trustees of WOW to use their best endeavours to bring about a fair and transparent resolution of this unacceptable situation,” the letter added. Those signing included legendary Scouse screenwriter Jimmy McGovern and former Unite boss Len McCluskey.

The organisation claims that during the HR process, “a public campaign was commenced publicising and using material that had been submitted by the staff themselves as part of their grievance, it included inaccurate and anonymous testimony of individuals purporting to have worked for WoW which was circulated widely.” They said that because of the ongoing process, they were “unable to respond and correct the misleading and inaccurate narratives.”

The organisation suggests that the petition, open letter and previous “media briefings”, sought to “undermine the veracity of the process” and that “despite the best efforts of trustees and independent legal and HR professionals, the staff rejected the entire process and its findings.”

After further meetings between the two sides throughout the month of March, it was just before 7pm on April 2 when the emails dropped. All four women were dismissed from their jobs at Writing on the Wall.

The women reject this characterisation from WOW that they were leading a campaign against the organisation.

“They are trying to link a campaign that is supporting us, set up on our behalf, with us directly, when they have no way of proving that”, says Rachael. “Liverpool is a small city and word gets around. People have been incredible in supporting us but they are dead set that it is coming from us and that’s why we have been sacked.”

“We were dismissed for what was described as “some other substantial reason,” explains Jenny. “They said it was a breakdown in trust because of the campaign that is supporting us and the open letter and that we have taken no accountability for the damage done to the organisation. We were off work sick for six months and never had a single welfare check.”

“They said we didn’t believe in their processes and policies which showed we didn’t trust them,” adds Rachael. An appeal hearing against the decision was not permitted, with a written appeal dismissed.

“It has been a very long six months,” says Rachael with a tired expression. “We loved our jobs and we really loved working with each other. We would actually love to go back but not with how the organisation is currently operating. We think things could change but the trustees don’t seem to realise that is an option.”

Speaking about the impact this has all had on her, Jenny adds: “Things were deteriorating for me very quickly in terms of my mental health at one point. I couldn’t have got through this without these girls and Tony and Eileen. I dread to think where I would be without them.”

Rachael agrees, stating: “We have had a huge amount of support from so many people. It is way beyond just the four of us doing this. But we keep propping each other up, when one of us has a teary wobble, the others rally round.”

“That’s what has kept me going,” adds Shahrzad. “The strength between us and the support from people we don’t even know.”

What Writing on the Wall has to say

The organisation via its trustees sent a lengthy response after we approached them with the women’s claims. We have included the majority of their points and rebuttals throughout this piece, with a further full statement below.

A spokesperson for the organisation said: “Writing on the Wall was founded on principles of inclusion, equality, creativity and social justice. WOWs organisational history demonstrates that trustees, management team and volunteers have remained committed to creating opportunities for underrepresented voices, supporting communities, and fostering respectful and inclusive cultural spaces.

“We recognise that leadership within a small and values-led organisation can involve challenges and difficult decisions. However, we strongly reject any characterisation of the organisation as acting contrary to the principles that have guided WOW’s work for many years.

“The concerns raised in this matter are deeply distressing and inconsistent with the ethos, standards, and inclusive culture that WOW has sought to uphold. We remain committed to ensuring that WOW continues to be a safe, inclusive and respectful environment for staff, artists, participants, partners and the wider community.

“The dismissals of the 4 staff involved followed an extensive HR process involving external HR advisers, independent legal advice, disciplinary investigations, formal grievance procedures, appeals, and trustee oversight over a prolonged period. The eventual dismissals took place under a “Some Other Substantial Reason” (SOSR) process that concluded that there was an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence within the employment relationship.

“The suggestion that management deliberately accessed an employee’s computer in order to read private WhatsApp messages is untrue and misrepresents the circumstances in which these concerns arose.

“It is important to clarify that the organisation’s concerns did not arise because employees raised disagreements, grievances, criticisms, or made a protected disclosure. The process began after disturbing material was observed openly displayed on a workplace computer in plain sight within a shared office environment. No personal mobile phone or private device was accessed, no passwords were bypassed, and no account was accessed through any form of unauthorised entry or “hacking”.

“As trustees and employers, WOW has a legal and ethical duty of care to all employees, regardless of role or seniority. All staff are entitled to work within a safe, respectful, inclusive, and psychologically safe environment. Where concerns are reported or become evident suggesting behaviour that may undermine dignity at work or contribute to a hostile workplace culture, trustees would have been negligent in their responsibilities had they failed to investigate the matter appropriately.

“Before disciplinary hearings took place, the employees involved went off sick, with one having already resigned her post. During the same period, matters relating to the internal staff process were shared externally with media outlets and third parties, including articles and petitions published in the period from November 2025. The statements made publicly during this period were, in the organisation’s view, wholly inaccurate and misleading. However, because the organisation was engaged in a formal legal and employment process, it was limited in what it could publicly respond to or refute at that time.”

“We recognise that this process has been difficult and distressing for everyone involved, and we do not underestimate the impact it has had on former employees, trustees, directors, and others connected to the organisation.

“The trustees nevertheless had a duty to act based on the actual evidence, the independent HR and legal advice received, and their responsibilities to ensure the protection and wellbeing of all staff members, contractors, and those connected with the organisation, while also ensuring that the organisation could continue operating effectively, responsibly, and safely.”

“Writing on the Wall remains committed to its mission, values, staff wellbeing, equality, community engagement, and proper governance processes. The Board of Trustees work voluntarily and are the legal employers, therefore are ultimately responsible for the welfare and wellbeing of staff and contractors. WOW trustees are drawn from a range of professional and community backgrounds, including domestic abuse services, the arts, women’s rights, legal services, education, and community development and are unwavering their commitment to honest, transparent and effective governance.”

The organisation and its trustees say they have become “increasingly alarmed” by the “conduct and behaviour of a small group associated with these matters.”

They added: “There has been growing concern that the actions have moved far beyond legitimate boundaries and have instead developed into a sustained and escalating campaign of intimidation, harassment, and reputational damage directed at the organisation and those associated with it.” They claim this action includes anonymous emails and handwritten notes delivered to private homes and workplaces, which have become “distressing.”

They also raised concerns about protests being held at festival events, which they claim has “created an atmosphere of fear, hostility and distress.”

A spokesperson said: “These actions increasingly appear to constitute a coordinated campaign of harassment undertaken by a relatively small group of individuals presenting themselves as acting within the context of a formal trade union dispute and official protest activity. These actions are not part of any official trade union process or authorised union action. Notwithstanding this, union banners and branding have been used publicly in a manner which presents the activity as an official dispute and picket.”

The former employees strongly reject these claims. Rachael told us: “Yes we have campaigned on this, which is our right. This has not been co-ordinated by us and we can’t speak for others, but we have not been involved in any communications sent to the organisation.

“But we have been overwhelmed by the support we have had and every protest or picket we have joined has been peaceful. We are just letting people know what has happened. It is certainly not harassment.”

WOW says it is now actively considering and taking advice regarding “all appropriate actions available to protect staff, trustees, volunteers, audiences, partners, venues, and associated individuals from further intimidation, harassment, and threatening behaviour.”

They added: “Despite the relentless harassment and intimidation experienced over recent months, trustees are pleased that the WOW Festival is continuing as planned, with a full and successful programme of events taking place throughout the entire month of May.

“Trustees remain enormously grateful to the artists, contributors, venues, partners, audiences, volunteers, funders and supporters who have continued to stand alongside WOW and ensure that communities are able to gather, participate, and engage safely in the festival’s events and activities.”