The BBC revealed a report last week which found that 37 complaints regarding sexual harassment had been launched since 2006

The report, commissioned by the BBC in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal last year, was undertaken by distinguished barrister Dinah Rose. Although the report was initially only meant to cover sexual harassment in the organisation, the scope of the report was widened to include non-sexual bullying and harassment in the workplace. This was then published in an 80-page tome by the BBC under the name “Respect At Work”.

The report found that although sexual harassment in the BBC was relatively rare, there was nonetheless a perception by staff that some managers and “celebrities” at the organisation were “untouchable”. Further, two-thirds of the 500 staff interviewed for the report indicated that they had witnessed or experienced bullying at the BBC. This, Ms Rose stated, created a culture of “fear”: fear that workers would lose their jobs, be made redundant, that they would be bullied by their colleagues or that they would upset their co-workers. However, there was reported to have only been 37 complaints of sexual harassment made over the six year period – or just over 6 complaints a year.

The key findings of the report were as follows:

• Staff are proud to work at the BBC
• Incidents of sexual harassment at the BBC are rare today
• There is evidence of inappropriate behaviour and bullying
• Some staff are fearful of raising complaints
• Issues – when they do arise – need to be tackled more quickly

The new Director General of the BBC, Mr Tony Hall, commented on the report that the report made “uncomfortable reading” and that there would now be a “zer0-tolerance” approach to bullying and harassment in the workplace. He also confirmed that the BBC would be reviewing and implementing changes to aspects of the workforce and the workplace so as to prevent and deal appropriately with bullying and harassment in the workplace. Such steps include:

• Setting up a confidential helpline for staff if they’re concerned about bullying or harassment in the workplace
• Overhauling the BBC’s bullying and harassment policies in consultation with the Unions
• Changing the manner in which grievances are dealt with in the workplace, including a guarantee that complaints will be dealt with within 30 days

Under s.26 of the Equality Act 2010, sexual harassment in the workplace is unlawful. Sexual harassment occurs if you (or another person) is subjected to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant or of violating their dignity. If a worker or an employee has been sexually harassed in the workplace then they have the right to make a complaint to the Employment Tribunal and – if successful – may receive compensation for the injury to their feelings that has arisen from the harassment taking place.

Commenting after the publication of the report, Chris Hadrill, a solicitor at Redmans, stated that “this report shows that sexual harassment in the workplace appears to be relatively rare at the BBC. However, it must be borne in mind that not all incidents of sexual harassment are reported – normally because the victim is ashamed of what’s happened to them or because they fear the repercussions”.

1. Paramedic sacked after wishing a ‘life-threatening’ illness upon Stafford Hospital campaigner on Facebook – an NHS paramedic was sacked by their employer after sending a number of hate messages to the founded of an NHS campaign group on Facebook, including stating that he hoped that she would suffer from a “life-threatening illness”. He has subsequently been referred to the Health and Care Professions Council on charges of serious professional misconduct (The Mail Online)
2. Officer ‘fairly sacked’ over death in Dunfermline cells – a police custody officer has been sacked for failing to make routine checks on a suicidal man who killed himself in the custody cells at Dunfermline Police Station (The Courier)
3. Announcement of 48 redundancies at Llanelli’s Calsonic Kansei plant – Calsonic Kansei announced last week that it was to make 48 redundancies in its manufacturing and manufacturing engineering departments at its headquarters in Wales, due to a fall in orders for its products  (This is South Wales)
4. BBC reveals there have been 37 complaints of sexual harassment in past six years as it publishes report on bullying - the BBC has released a report that reveals that there has been dozens of formal complaints (47 in total) regarding sexual harassment in the workplace over the last six years, with the review deeming the behaviour of some on-air stars “inappropriate” (The Mail Online)
5. Sacked nursery worker denies blackmailing boss for £30k over cocaine – a nursery worker who was sacked after allegedly blackmailing her bosses over £30,000-worth of planted cocaine has taken her case to the Employment Tribunal in order to gain compensation for unfair dismissal (Manchester Evening News)

Mr Stuart Guard, 28, worked for Direct Plant Services Ltd (t/a South and West Highways Trenching) as a labourer. His duties involved preparing areas (including tarmacced areas) for excavation, using specialised machines. The accident occurred on 30 July 2009 when Mr Guard was using a trenching machine with a top-cutter attachment at a site in Box. This machine was designed to cut through the layer of tarmac so that trenches could be dug and pipes could be laid. After cutting through the tarmac and completing the trench Mr Guard climbed out of the cockpit of the machine. He subsequently became entangled in the cutting mechanism, which was stilling rotating. He suffered fatal injuries as a result of this. The accident was reported to the Health and Safety Executive and an investigation was subsequently undertaken. This investigation resulted in a recommendation by the HSE that the company be prosecuted for breaching health and safety laws.

The case came before the Swindon Crown Court on 26 April 2013. The court heard that there was supposed to be a switch under the driver’s seat of the trench-cutting machine that would automatically disable the trench-cutting mechanism when the driver’s door was opened. However, this switch had been deliberately disabled, meaning that the machine did not stop when Mr Guard climbed down from the cockpit. The HSE also found that the switches in three other machines owned by the company had also been disabled. Further, although the company was supposed to assign two workers to such a job, the HSE discovered that the company routinely only assigned one worker.

The company submitted a guilty plea to the Crown Court, which found that it was guilty of:

• One count of a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, namely that the company had failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees
• Three counts of a breach of Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, namely that the company ha d failed to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or that it failed to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery before any part of a person enters a danger zone

The company was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay£55,890 in costs as a result.

The HSE commented after the prosecution that “South and West Highways Trenching paid scant regard to the welfare of its employees and took dangerous shortcuts in its attitude toward safety. The company’s safety failings had disastrous consequences for Mr Guard”.

Chris Hadrill, employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case that “this case shows that it’s extremely important that dangerous construction machinery is not tampered with and that employees are rigorously trained in health and safety protocol”.

In the latest of our series on employment law stories in the news, we’ve got some interesting cases for you this week. There’s a number of reports concerning redundancies in workplaces, an accident at work claim over an earring, and a discrimination case involving a sauna, among others.

1. Earring woman in £1m damages claim - A manager is suing her employers for more than £1m because she received back injuries picking up an earring (BBC)
2. Redundant Hovis workers leave bakery - Hundreds of Hovis workers will leave a factory in Birmingham on Wednesday ahead of its full closure next month (BBC)
3. New BBC director-general Tony Hall says severance payments will be capped at £150,000 - Tony Hall, the new BBC director-general, has proposed capping severance payments at £150,000 following the furore over the £450,000 paid to his predecessor George Entwistle (The Telegraph)
4. Hotel manager sacked for opening gay sauna awarded unfair dismissal compensation - A former hotel leisure centre manager, who was sacked after he opened a gay sauna, has been awarded over 25,000€ (£21,000) in compensation (Pink News)
5. Heathrow security workers sacked for stealing entrance fee money for VIP lounge popular with David Beckham and Rihanna - Two Heathrow airport security workers have been fired for allegedly stealing the entrance fee for the exclusive VIP lounge used by leading celebrities (Mail Online)
6. MPs call for new body to regulate workplace pensions - MPs have called for a new regulator to look after workplace pensions. They argue that existing problems will be worsened by the fact that there are now three regulators overseeing the industry (The Independent)
7. Airline seeks redundancies in cost-cutting bid - AER Lingus is seeking 100 voluntary redundancies as part of an overall cost-analysis project, as it announced a revenue rise in the first three months of 2013 (Belfast Telegraph)
8. Identities of staff who ‘exchanged lewd pornography’ sought by sacked Bank of Ireland manager - The identities of dozens of Bank of Ireland employees, managers and top executives, alleged to have exchanged lewd pornographic e-mails, are to be sought publicly in a fight by a sacked manager to retain his reinstated status (The Independent)
9. Redundancy for editor after Twitter campaign fails - A weekly editor who was told his role is to be made redundant the day after his paper posted a 2.1pc sales rise has today officially left his post after a Twitter campaign to save him failed (HoldTheFrontPage.co.uk)
10. Catholic midwives win appeal over abortion case - Two Roman Catholic midwives have won a legal battle to avoid taking any part in abortion procedures (BBC)

Stay tuned next week for more employment law news!

Two security guards at Heathrow have been sacked after allegations were made that they accepted bribes to allow travellers to use an exclusive VIP lounge.

Two security guards at Heathrow have apparently been sacked after it was alleged that they accepted bribes to let travellers into an exclusive VIP lounge in the airport. The two staff members let travellers pay a nominal amount to let them into the lounge – which normally charges £1,800 for entrance and has played host to such stars as David Beckham and Rihanna. On other occasions they apparently agreed to receive gifts from stars (although there is no suggestion that Rihanna or Beckham were involved) instead of charging them the full entrance fee.

The misconduct was discovered after airport bosses were alerted to allegations and a full internal investigation was launched. This resulted in a disciplinary investigation and disciplinary procedure being carried out, after which the two managers were dismissed for gross misconduct.

If you’re accused of misconduct  (improper or unacceptable behaviour) in the workplace then you may be dismissed as a result – this is normally if the conduct is so serious as to be regarded as gross misconduct. Gross misconduct normally includes the most serious offences, such as theft or violence. For an action (or omission to act) to be classed as gross misconduct it has to be deliberate and intentional on the part of the employee – it has to either be deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence at work. If your employer has a reasonable belief that you have stolen from your employer then this would normally constitute gross misconduct.

In order for the conduct complained of to be gross misconduct it must:

1. Be so serious that it goes to the root of the contract; and
2. Be a deliberate and wilful breach of the contract or amount to gross negligence

If you’re found guilty of gross misconduct then your employer is entitled to terminate your contract of employment without notice. However, if your employer fails to carry out a fair procedure or make a reasonable decision to dismiss you then you may have a claim for unfair dismissal.

A chef with a severe nut allergy has been told by the Employment Tribunal that he can press ahead with his claim for disability discrimination.

Mr Wheeldon, 30, is a chef and relief manager at the 14th century Whittington Inn, just outside Birmingham. He recently discovered that he has an allergy to nuts and has taken steps to change his life-style, his diet and his shopping habits because of the allergy – even just the smell and touch of all types of nuts makes him ill and causes him to experience a skin disorder. He was rushed to hospital last year after coming into contact with nuts and subsequently submitted an Employment Tribunal claim for disability discrimination after he alleged that his employer had failed to make suitable adjustments to his workplace to allow him to work without coming into contact with nuts.

The Employment Tribunal accepted the claim but a live issue in the case was whether Mr Wheeldon’s allergy to nuts could constitute a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and whether he was therefore entitled to claim for disability discrimination. His employer stated that it was not and the matter went to a Pre-Hearing Review in early April 2013. The Employment Judge at the Pre-Hearing Review, Mr Bryn Lloyd, stated that he had not dealt with such a matter before but that he considered that Mr Wheeldon’s allergy to nuts could constitute a disability – and that the matter could therefore proceed to a full hearing. Employment Judge Lloyd described Mr Wheeldon as a credible witness who was compelled to alter his lifestyle after discovering that he had a severe allergy to nuts.

In order to succeed with a disability discrimination claim for an employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments, a Claimant must show the following:

• That they are experiencing a mental or physical disability; 
• That a practice, criterion or provision (“PCP”) in the workplace is putting them at a substantial disadvantage as compared to a non-disabled person; and
• The employer fails to make a reasonable adjustment to that PCP to prevent such a disadvantage

One of the crucial issues that can arise in a disability discrimination claim is whether the Claimant is “disabled” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. Some disabilities automatically are deemed to qualify (such as cancer, for example) but – as with the case above – it may sometimes be a more complex issue. In order to successfully claim that they have a disability, a Claimant must show that:

1. Their employer knew of their disability and that the disability was likely to be a disadvantage
2. That they are experiencing some form of mental or physical impairment (which isn’t caused by alcoholism or drug dependency)
3. That the impairment affects their participation in professional life on a daily or frequent basis
4. That the effect of the impairment is more than trivial; and
5. That the disability is “long-term” – either lasting for equal to or more than 12 months, or for the rest of their life

A former applicant for a position at Virgin Atlantic has failed in his race discrimination claim in the Employment Tribunal.

A Liberian-born man has failed in his claim for race discrimination against Virgin Atlantic, reports the BBC. Max Kpakio, a resident of Swansea, made a number of applications to Virgin Atlantic for the position with the airline’s call centre in 2011. However, although his application under his real name failed, an application by him under the fake name “Craig Owen” succeeded. He believed that he had been racially discriminated against by Virgin Atlantic over his unusual name and made a claim for race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, claiming loss of earnings and injury to feelings up to £55,000.

The case came before the Employment Tribunal in Cardiff earlier this year. The Employment Tribunal heard evidence from both Mr Kpakio and Virgin Atlantic staff regarding the application process, including the fact that the two forms were different in their content as well as being submitted by two apparently different people. The application from “Mr Owen” claimed over five years’ experience working in Tesco and Asda supermarkets, whereas the application from Mr Kpakio did not contain such information. The Tribunal therefore came to the conclusion that Mr Kpakio had not been offered the job for a reason other than race discrimination.

In order to succeed with a claim for direct race discrimination a Claimant must succeed in showing that:

1. That they possess a particular protected racial characteristic (for example, their nationality, national origin, skin colour etc.)
2. That they have been subjected to some form of detriment
3. That other comparable employees (or applicants etc.) who do not possess their characteristic have not been treated in the same manner; and
4. That the reason for the differential (and detrimental) treatment is their protected racial characteristic

Mr Kpakio succeeded in showing that he has a protected racial characteristic – from media reports this is his Liberian national origin and alleged that the detriment that he had been subjected to was that he was not offered the call centre job. He further claimed that comparable applicants who did not possess such an “unusual” name as his (which – it is assumed – is characteristically Liberian) were offered the job – hence his concern over the success of the application of Craig Owen, as compared to his own application. However, where Mr Kpakio “fell down” was his inability to show causation – that he had not been offered the job because of his protected characteristic rather than factual differences in the applications made. He was therefore unable to succeed with his race discrimination claim before the Employment Tribunal.

A bus driver has been sacked from his job after he left work early to attend the birth of his first son.

A Yorkshire bus driver has apparently been sacked from his job after rushing to hospital to attend the birth of his first son. Mr Shaun Hooley, 38, has worked as a bus driver since he was 21 years old. He had only been working in his job for Tates Travel for 10 weeks when he received a call four hours after the start of his shift informing him that his partner had gone into labour. He immediately telephoned his employers at the Tates Travel depot and asked for a cover driver to be organised so he could finish work early to get to the hospital and also said that he would continue with his shift but would call back later to see what arrangements had been made so that he could leave work. However, there was then a dispute as to what happened next; Mr Hooley apparently claims that he made several more calls to the depot but was “getting nowhere”, whereupon he dropped off his passengers and returned to the depot. However, the bus company alleges that attempts were made to contact Mr Hooley but that he hadn’t replied, and that Mr Hooley had returned to the depot without being informed that a relief driver had been organised. At this point Mr Hooley was informed that he was in breach of his contract of employment and dismissed.

Mr Hooley later expressed frustration at the lack of legal protection for employees in his situation, claiming that he had been “hardworking and never let them down. I thought they would be compassionate… I’ve lost my job but I did get to the hospital in time and I was therefore the birth of my first son, Jacob Thomas”.

Mr Graham Mallinson, managing director of Tates Travel, stated that “He (Mr Hooley) was 14 miles from the depot when he phoned to say he wanted time off to attend his baby’s birth. That was about four hours after he started his shift. We told him we would try to get a relief driver and at 9.40 we had organised one. We phoned him but he didn’t reply. He came back to the depot a little after 10am with an empty bus and he was told he was in breach of his contract and he was dismissed. He was on a three month trial and if he had given us reasonable notice that his partner was expecting a baby and he wanted to be at the birth he could have taken time off”.

As Mr Hooley had only been working for his former employers for 10 weeks at the date of the incident he would not receive protection against being dismissed under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which only protects employees with two or more years’ continuous service unless they have been dismissed for an automatically unfair reason.

1. Blacklisting “may not be a thing of the past” – The interim report of the Scottish Affairs Parliamentary Committee’s inquiry into blacklisting on construction sites disagrees with Coalition claims that blacklisting is a thing of the past (The Institute of Employment Rights)
2. Liberian man claims he wasn’t offered a job by Virgin Atlantic because of his African name – A graduate has told an employment tribunal that he was discriminated against by Virgin Atlantic because of his African name (The Independent)
3. Commerzbank ‘victimised’ employee over discrimination case, tribunal rules – A City banker was “victimised” by her bank after it discovered she was suing her former employer for sexual discrimination, a tribunal has ruled. (The Guardian)
4. Tribunal rules in favour of Laurieston firefighter – Fire chiefs have been criticised after a female firefighter was found to be unfairly dismissed (The Falkirk Herald)
5. Christian woman sacked after Islamist harassment granted application to appeal – A Christian worker who was dismissed from her job at Heathrow Airport has been granted permission to challenge a ruling by an employment tribunal which left her without any rights under employment law (Christian Concern)
6. Venue staff win tribunal battle over wages – An employment tribunal has awarded more than £10,000 in unpaid wages to three staff members of the Brixton Club House, the south London venue that recently hosted a revival of Boy George musical Taboo (The Stage)
7. Chef with nut allergy can claim disability discrimination – A Kidderminster chef at one of the most historic inns in the West Midlands has been told he can go ahead with a compensation claim for disability discrimination against his employers – because he is allergic to nuts. (The Kidderminster Shuttle)
8. Sellafield contractor loses unfair dismissal case - Simon Mattinson, 47, took Gabre UK Ltd to an employment tribunal in Carlisle yesterday claiming constructive unfair dismissal. But a panel, led by Judge John Nichol, ruled unanimously that Mr Mattinson, who worked at the plant for 30 years as a charge hand scaffolder, did not suffer a fundamental breach of contract (Newsand Star)
9. Woman awarded £12,293 for sexual harassment at work – A woman who suffered sexual harassment at work has been awarded £12,293 by an industrial tribunal (BBC)
10. Firms “ignoring” employment law – some small Jersey businesses are ignoring basic principles of the employment law according to a review conducted by well-known employment lawyer Darren Newman (BBC)

Sergeant Jeremy Scott, who worked in a back-office role for the Met Police, reacted to the death of Margaret Thatcher last week by posting a number of messages on Twitter, including one which is understood to have read that he hoped her death was “painful and degrading”.

Sgt Scott, who posted under the Twitter handle @thinbluespeck, also posted that Baroness Thatcher’s death had been “87 years too late” and that the world was a “better place” because of her death. He went on to celebrate the “death parties” that were occurring in Brixton and Glasgow, using the aforementioned Twitter handle. The handle has since been deleted from Twitter.

It was confirmed last week by the Met Police that Sgt Scott had immediately tendered his resignation after the Tweets were made public. It was also reported that he referred the matter to the Directorate of Professional Standards, which is responsible for investigating complaints of misconduct against police officers.

This incident with the Metropolitan Police comes in the wake of a Freedom of Information request which revealed that forced Scotland Yard to reveal that three police officers have been sacked from the Force for misusing social media in the last three years. Further, 75 Metropolitan Police officers have had complaints filed against them because of misuse of Facebook and Twitter since 2009, with 38 of the complaints being upheld.

The above issues highlight the problems that employers face with social media in the workplace. Ill-advised Tweets or Facebook postings can cause friction between co-workers (as per a recent High Court decision and several recent Employment Tribunal decisions), damage an employer’s reputation and/or damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee. It’s therefore important that employers have a social media policy in place that explains the requirements imposed on employees regarding social media and the consequences of a failure to use social media in a responsible fashion. If the employer fails to do this and subsequently dismisses an employee for failing to use social media responsibly then this may open the employer up to a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal.

Chris Hadrill, employment solicitor at Redmans, commented that “the case of Sgt Scott shows that employers have to be vigilant about the use of social media both inside and outside of a work context. Offensive or generally ill-advised postings on social media sites can cause damage to an employer’s reputation and may also seriously damage existing or potential commercial relationships. It is therefore very important that employees are appraised of the need to use social media responsibly and the consequences of a failure to act responsibly”.