Claims of harassment related to age and sex

legal updates

Mr King was found to have crossed the line by making reference to Mr Finn’s appearance which had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, and/or offensive environment.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

An employment tribunal has recently been in the news for its outcome, whereby an electrician who was called a “bald ****”by a work colleague, was found to be a victim of sex-related harassment.

The Sheffield tribunal recently heard a case brought by Mr Finn. Mr Finn was employed by the British Bung Company.

Mr Finn alleged he had been harassed and threatened with physical assault following him questioning a colleague (Mr King) regarding a piece of machinery.

Mr King responded to Mr Finn by calling him “a bald ****”.

The tribunal found the insult was unwanted conduct and whilst the language was deemed as industrial language on the West Yorkshire factory floor, Mr King was found to have crossed the line by making reference to Mr Finn’s appearance which had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, and/or offensive environment.

Mr King admitted he had referred to Mr Finn as the allegation stated and continued to inform the tribunal that he (Mr King) was going to “knock him out”.

When Mr Finn raised the issue with his supervisor, they requested him to drop the issue. This action was agreed by Mr Finn.

Almost two years later and during the pandemic, Mr Finn was furloughed and only returned to the workplace on an ad hoc basis. On 25 March 2021, Mr Finn was requested to shut down a machine and, therefore, he approached Mr King (as the only supervisor on duty, his authorisation was required). Mr King sought assistance from Mr Hardcastle (a production manager) who disputed the machine needed to be shut down.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Mr Finn alleged that Mr Hardcastle then started swearing at him and in turn, Mr Finn responded by also swearing. This led to Mr King telling Mr Finn not to swear at Mr Hardcastle and an argument ensued between Mr Finn and Mr King. Mr Finn alleged Mr King called him “an old bald ****” and also threatened him with physical violence.

Mr King denied these allegations, and the tribunal found he “did not make pejorative remarks about the claimant’s age or appearance”, but that he did threaten Mr Finn with physical violence.

HaswentWebsites for dealers small and large

Composer is a next-gen automotive platform that has been designed from the ground up to give you an intuitive way to promote your stock. You have extensive stock management options, and you'll gain a brilliantly responsive new website to advertise your stock, starting at just £39.99/month.

Between 25 March and 8 April 2021, Mr Finn had no contact with anyone at The British Bung Company. He only contacted them regarding a query over his payslip. Mr Finn was subsequently invited to an investigatory meeting about the incident in March. Mr Finn’s son, who happens to be a police officer, helped him prepare a statement (the statement itself was used from a template with the words “West Yorkshire Police’ and included the words: “‘WITNESS STATEMENT’ (Criminal Justice Act 1967, s9; Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s5B; Criminal Procedure Rules, Rule 16.2)”).
There were no contemporaneous notes of this meeting, but the tribunal was informed it ended abruptly when Mr Finn presented his witness statement.

Following the meeting, Mr Finn was sent a letter by his employer on 13 April 2021, that stated the implications of his witness statement were “very serious”. Mr Finn replied explaining it had been prepared by his son and “was not done with the intention to mislead anyone”.

However, following a disciplinary hearing to discuss the witness statement, Mr Finn was told by letter on 25 May 2021, that he was being dismissed for gross misconduct.

The dismissal letter alleged Mr Finn had “deliberately provided a witness statement which falsely suggested on its face and by its content, that it had been made to, and taken by, West Yorkshire Police in connection with the investigation of an alleged crime”. Mr Finn appealed but failed.

The tribunal’s judgment found Mr Finn was a victim of harassment relating to sex as a result of the incident in July 2019. Although the claim was brought 18 months out of time, the tribunal extended the period because it was “in the public interest that such complaints are considered and adjudicated upon and that wrongdoers are held to account”.

Claims of harassment related to age and sex as a result of the March 2021 incident were dismissed.

However, a claim of detriment arising from a health and safety reason succeeded because Mr Finn had been “ostracised and ignored” and his claims were not properly investigated by the respondent following the March 2021 incident.

The complaint of wrongful dismissal succeeded because whilst Mr Finn could reasonably be found guilty of destroying the trust between employer and employee with his witness statement – it was found that his intentions in presenting the statement were “to be helpful and preserve the relationship” and Mr Finn had tried “no fewer than seven times” to reassure his employer there was no police investigation.

A claim of unfair dismissal was also successful on the grounds the employer did not act in good faith during the disciplinary procedure. However, a further claim that Mr Finn was unfairly dismissed for a protected disclosure, failed.

The award for compensation will be determined at a later date.

The full judgment can be read at:

Microsoft Word – 1803764-2021 RJR.docx (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Roxanne BradleyLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

ACAS conciliation

Employers can also contact ACAS directly for assistance in mediation with a former employee.

“Your hours cut or you’re fired!” ultimatum resulted in an unfair dismissal finding

Employment contract variation is a matter which should be approached with care and any opposition should not be written off without consideration.

A word of caution – Dismissal of an anti-vaccination employee ruled to be fair

Does this decision lend grounds for employers to dismiss staff refusing a COVID-19 vaccine at present?

Goodbye 2021, hello 2022!

Despite an excess of 100 different commission claims hitting the Lawgistics’ desks, not one single dealer has had to part with their money.

Christmas Party – It’s all fun and games until…

Employers could still be very much liable for any injuries which may occur.

COVID-19 Employment Tribunals

On 26 March 2020, the Coronavirus Act 2020 came into force, making lockdown enforceable by law.

Facebook dismissals – Always know your policy and follow procedure

To be precise, the employer was ordered to pay £28,560 after this case was heard at Newcastle Upon Tyne Employment Tribunal.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.