Search
Close this search box.

Sacked, for calling women ‘love’ at work

Employers should be conscious of remarks like these being utilised in the workplace and ensure that “banter” is not creating an uncomfortable or offensive environment for any staff members.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is any unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature which makes someone feel intimidated, degraded, humiliated, or offended, even if it wasn’t intended. Some examples include flirting, gesturing, or making sexual remarks about someone’s body, clothing or appearance; telling sexually offensive jokes; asking questions about someone’s sex life; making sexual comments or jokes about someone’s sexual orientation or gender reassignment; or, touching someone against their will, including hugging or massaging.

Such behaviour is displayed in this tribunal judgement (Hartley v D Hollowell & Sons Limited) which ultimately led to the employee’s dismissal being fair. In particular, his comments of his colleague being “curvy in all the right places” and looking up her skirt, in addition to ‘pet’ names of “sweetie, love, chick, honey, babes and hun,” to which his female colleague felt offended and demeaned. The tribunal found that such pet names would not have been in communication with male colleagues and a comparison of “mate” and “pal” is not equitable since these are appropriate nicknames which do not undermine the individual being addressed.

Employers should be conscious of remarks like these being utilised in the workplace and ensure that “banter” is not creating an uncomfortable or offensive environment for any staff members. Having clear policies and zero-tolerance communication on workplace bullying and harassment can help protect organisations against claims, as can regular staff training and a culture of professionalism. Organisations might need to consider establishing clear standards of practice to remove any element of “laddish” behaviour and make clear that the workplace is an environment of respect and equality.

It is important to remember that tribunal decisions are made based on the individual facts of the case. In this instance, a key determining factor was the additional inappropriate comments the employee made to several of his colleagues and not just the use of pet names to refer to them. It would be interesting to understand the outcome of the tribunal if the dismissal was based on the use of pet names alone. However, ultimately, any sexist conduct will likely be seen as inappropriate and unfair.

    Read more

    Latest News

    Read More

    Embracing neurodiversity in the future of hybrid work

    16 June 2024

    Newsletter

    Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

    Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

    Latest HR Jobs

    The Compliance and HR Administrator position involves assisting with the implementation of compliance programs and HR procedures, maintaining accurate records,… £22,000 – £24,000 a yearFrom

    London School of Economics and Political Science – Human Resources DivisionSalary: £29,935 to £33,104 per annum inclusive with potential to progress to £35,441 pa inclusive

    Durham University – HR & ODSalary: £23,144 to £24,533 per annum

    University of Cambridge – Case Management Team HR DivisionSalary: £40,521 to £54,395

    Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

    Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE