To what extent is malicious intent necessary for remarks to be considered inappropriate? Not necessary at all, according to a recent ruling by Sheffield Employment Tribunal (ET).
The ruling relates to a matter in which pub manager Ms. J. Prewett, an employee of Greene King from 1995 until 2018, won a claim of sexual harassment after a senior co-worker subjected her to supposedly humorous sexual innuendos.
The Sheffield pub that Ms. Prewett managed failed an audit in July 2018, following which she was given and accepted a final warning. On 1st August 2018 her line manager, Mr. Gaunt, and Greene King’s risk manager, Mr. Bentley, arranged to meet her at the pub to review the kitchen standards in place.
At that meeting Ms. Prewett heard Bentley ask Gaunt whether he knew what a ‘growler’ was. Gaunt did not, so Bentley instructed Ms. Prewett not to tell him if she knew what it was and then proceeded to tell Gaunt a joke about the confusion between two definitions of the term – it is both a Yorkshire term for a pork pie and also a slang term for a vagina. Ms. Prewett was also unfamiliar with the term, so did not understand the joke until it was later explained to her by another colleague. However, as the ET judge observed, the meeting was already stressful for her and the attempt at humour was inappropriate. She felt uneasy being involved in the conversation, and was made even more uncomfortable when she eventually understood it.
On 13th August Bentley visited the pub again. Ms. Prewett asked what he would like to see first, to which he responded “Depends on what’s on offer.” He then touched the back of her shoulder before they went into the kitchen. On 11th September Ms. Prewett informed Gaunt by telephone that she was resigning on account of Bentley’s behaviour. She confirmed this by email the following day, stating that she wished to make a formal complaint. Gaunt met her at the pub a few days later and took statements from Ms. Prewett and a colleague who had witnessed Bentley’s 13th August visit.
In an email account of the 1st August meeting, Gaunt played down Bentley’s attempt at humour as ‘a lame joke’. In evidence at the tribunal he then attempted to argue that a growler was also a vessel in which real ale is sold, and that the joke had been part of a conversation about ale sales. This explanation was rejected.
Greene King had rejected both Ms. Prewett’s grievance and her subsequent appeal, prompting her to bring a claim for sexual harassment and unfair dismissal to the Sheffield ET. The unfair dismissal claim was rejected, but the sexual harassment claim was upheld unanimously and Greene King ordered to pay her £5,000.
This matter proves the importance of clear and enforceable policies on appropriate behaviour in the workplace, including the need to make employees aware of the risks in making jokes. What may be intended only as banter by one person can be taken very differently by another, and innocent intentions may not be enough to stop something being considered unacceptable.
