Significant Award for Zero Hours Worker

In a recent case before the Employment Tribunal, a zero hours worker succeeded in a harassment claim on the grounds of their sex.  The individual was employed as a casual worker as a waitress and, under the terms of her agreement, there was no guarantee of any hours from the company and she was not obliged to undertake any work.

During her time with the company, the employee complained that she had been harassed for a period of approximately 8 months by her line manager.  According to the employee, the line manager asked very intimate questions about her personal life and, as time progressed, complaints were issued suggesting that the line manager had touched her inappropriately and made further inappropriate remarks about her personal life.

The employee complained to a separate manager and eventually asked for a formal complaint to be lodged.  No particular details were sought regarding the behaviour from the complainant though and a witness was only interviewed for 10 minutes.  The line manager denied the conduct and a brief conclusion that the behaviour was inappropriate was given to the employee.  No disciplinary action was taken as a result.

The employee then complained to an Employment Tribunal and a reinvestigation was commenced some 10 months after the complaint.  Following a reinvestigation, the witness who had come forward previously mysteriously no longer existed and no conclusive evidence was found of the harassment.

At an Employment Tribunal, the employee was awarded £19,500 for injury to feelings against both the line manager and the company who were deemed to be vicariously liable for the act of harassment.  The Tribunal noted in particular that the line manager was reluctant to give very much evidence at all and was evasive about a number of answers that he gave.  On the balance of probabilities, it was held that the conduct had taken place, that it was degrading and violated her dignity and was on the grounds of her sex.

The employer tried to argue that it should not be deemed to be vicariously liable because of the action it took to prevent the harassment.  However, there were numerous failings during the investigation, the line manager was not suspended or disciplined and the reinvestigation was wholly inadequate.  There were no steps put in place to prevent the harassment or to punish the offender and the company was therefore seemed to be jointly liable with the line manager.

The compensation awarded totalled £19,500 which made the behaviour fall in to the most serious category of harassment in the Tribunal’s conclusions.  The Tribunal explained that, whilst the harassment was not of the worst type, the employee’s own characteristics should be taken into account.  She did suffer from mental health problems and was a very young employee.  There was an abuse of power by the line manager and the behaviour was overlooked completely by the employer.  Not only were there long term acts of harassment but the employer failed to address the problem at all and this aggravating feature caused the Tribunal to issue a significant award.

The case highlights the importance of protecting all workers within a business and not simply those in a permanently employed capacity but also casual workers.  The case is also a reminder of the burden placed on employers in responding to grievances and the protection which they are expected to afford to employees who suffer such unwanted behaviour in the workplace.  Particular emphasis was placed on the employees’ vulnerability given her personal characteristics and this should also be taken into account in any investigation and subsequent action.