Workplace Harassment Can Be Downright Cruel – You Don’t Have to Take It

Harassment in the workplace can descend into downright cruelty and employers who fail to stamp out such behaviour can expect to pay a heavy reputational and financial price. In a case on point, a sandwich shop worker who endured her line manager’s wounding comments received substantial…

Aug 30, 2022

Anastasia kalinkina 8dcaomm da4 unsplash 683x1024

The woman, who was in her probationary period at the shop, was being treated for a number of medical conditions, which amounted to a disability. Her numerous allergies required her to carry an EpiPen. Prior to her dismissal, she had expressed concern about a number of alleged health and safety breaches at the shop, including what she considered an inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ruling on her case, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that her line manager made disparaging comments concerning her appearance and medical conditions. Amongst other things, he laughed whilst waving food to which she was allergic under her nose and made jokes about her committed veganism. Given the number of medical tests and examinations she was undergoing, he referred to her as a ‘science experiment’.

The ET found that the reason or principal reason for her dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures concerning health and safety issues and her entitlement to rest breaks. The line manager’s comments amounted to harassment in that they created an intimidating, hostile, humiliating and offensive working environment for her. They related to her protected characteristics, including her disability and her belief in veganism which was an important part of her life and how she lived it.

The ET awarded her £2,092 in respect of her unfair dismissal and £10,000 for injury to her feelings arising from the harassment. Further awards were made in respect of an unauthorised deduction from her wages and her employer’s refusal to permit her to exercise her right to an uninterrupted rest break.

A Fair Redundancy Process Requires Consultation at a Formative Stage

A fair redundancy process requires consultation of affected employees at a formative stage when there is at least the potential for them to influence the outcome. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) succinctly made that point in finding that a recruitment consultant in the banking sector was unfairly dismissed. The man’s employer, part of an American-owned group, experienced a downturn in business due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A decision was taken that redundancies were required amongst…

Low Caste Hindu Refused Anonymity Order in Employment Case

The subject matter of Employment Tribunal (ET) cases can be highly sensitive, and those involved are often keen to maintain their anonymity. However, as was shown by a case in which controversial religious issues took centre stage, the open justice principle will usually require them to be identified by name. The case concerned a senior electrical engineer who was of Tamil origin and came from a low Hindu caste. In ET proceedings he asserted, amongst other things, that his line manager, a high…

Veteran Supermarket Worker’s Summary Dismissal Did Not Fit the Offence

When dealing with allegations of gross misconduct, an employer may conduct an entirely reasonable investigation and disciplinary process, but as one case showed, the final – and perhaps most important – question in a decision-maker’s mind must be whether any sanction imposed fits the offence. The case concerned a bizarre series of text messages sent by a supermarket worker to his manager. They made reference to a knife and the manager viewed them as a threat. Following an internal investigation…