Hello hello, Alex here (or am I? ooo!) By the time you read this I will hopefully be on a beach with a cocktail in hand and honestly, it can’t come soon enough! I’m shattered and have been feeling under the weather all week, it’s been a struggle.
Me and husband are going to Maderia, and whilst we do have a couple of plans for day trips, we plan to spend the rest of the time doing not much at all really other than reading (that’ll be me, not my husband), swimming, and nice meals. Bliss.
I’m feeling very ready for a break, and it will also be my birthday whilst we are away and I’ve planned a sunrise hike for us to start the day, my husband did take some convincing of this idea, I think it being my birthday ultimately won him over on that one! Photos will be shared on my return, fingers crossed for a clear morning.
So, you most likely have read and heard about all the upcoming potential changes under the Employment Rights Bill, but given that most of the planned changes will not take effect for two years following a period of consultation, and we’ve issued a run through on this already (see here), I’m not going to cover this here.
Instead, I wanted to talk about a case in the employment tribunal which caught my eye. It’s the case of Chung v Whisky 1901.
This case, although not from the 1970s, was about colleagues making derogatory comments about women, referring to them as “birds”. This incident, along with other behaviours from colleagues towards the employee in question, was found by the employment tribunal to constitute harassment relating to sex.
The other incidents I mentioned were things such as a colleague enquiring about whether the employee had intended to become pregnant and locking her out of the office. She raised a grievance but this wasn’t upheld. The company just preferred the evidence of the male perpetrator.
Following this grievance, the CEO of the company ended up disciplining the employee, suspending her for 5 months and eventually issuing a written warning that would last for 12 months (rather than their usual 6). In fact, he issued that written warning without himself actually attending the disciplinary hearing. This all led to the employee resigning and bringing a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment on the grounds of sex and victimisation.
Unsurprisingly, the tribunal found in the employee’s favour. Locking her out of the office, making comments about her pregnancy and referring to women as “birds” were all found to be acts of harassment related to sex. Suspending her, issuing a disciplinary sanction and dismissing her (by way of her resignation) were all found to be acts of victimisation. Not upholding her grievance was found to be an act of direct sex discrimination.
Now whilst this is an extreme version of events, it really does highlight the importance of making your staff aware of what is and isn’t ok in your workplace. Remember our key responsibilities (particularly under the new Workers Protection Act which comes into force on 26th October 2024):
- Assess risks;
- Put in place reasonable steps to prevent harassment;
- This should include having robust and comprehensive policies and procedures in place
- It should also include training staff so they know what is/isn’t acceptable and what they should be doing if they become witness to or the victim of harassment.
We’ve spoken before about the new duties to prevent sexual harassment in the work place (READ HERE ), and this case is a reminder that even terms which may be thought of as harmless “banter” can end up getting you into hot water.
AND If you’re local to my lovely hometown of sunny Stoke then we have just the event for you on this topic coming up soon – BOOK HERE: . We’re going to be taking a look at banter in the workplace and workplace culture. The venue is also near Stoke train station if that’s easy for you to get to, and we would love to have you along if you can make it.
Recent Comments