An Employment Tribunal has recently found that calling a man “bald” amounts to sexual harassment in the case of Finn v The British Bung Manufacturing Company Limited.
Mr Finn was employed by The British Bung Manufacturing Company Limited (“the Company”) as an electrician for almost 24 years with an “unblemished disciplinary record”. He was dismissed on the 25 May 2021.
He had several altercations with a shift supervisor, Jamie King, and claimed that, in July 2019, Mr King called him an “old bald c***” and threatened to “deck him”. This left Mr Finn in fear of his personal safety but he did not raise a formal complaint at this time.
A second incident between the two colleagues occurred in March 2021, following which Mr Finn left the workplace and did not return for a couple of weeks, informing senior staff effectively that Mr Finn could no longer work with Mr King.
The Company conducted an investigation into the incidents and, as part of the investigation process, Mr Finn gave them a witness statement on the West Yorkshire Police letterhead leading the Company to believe the matter had been reported to the police.
Mr Finn was suspended and subsequently dismissed for breaching the trust and confidence between himself and the Company by purportedly reporting the matter to West Yorkshire Police (despite the matter not having been reported to the police).
Mr Finn brought a number of claims against the Company in the Employment Tribunal, including harassment on grounds of sex.
The Tribunal found that Mr King had called Mr Finn a “bald c***.” In considering whether it was unwanted conduct, the Tribunal considered the fact that Mr Finn had complained about the words “bald” and “old” being used, not the word “c***.” It concluded, that in this context, the use of the word “bald” amounted to unwanted conduct.
Furthermore, on Mr King’s admission that he had intended to threaten and insult Mr Finn, the Tribunal found that using the word “bald” had the purpose and effect of violating Mr Finn’s dignity and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
Whilst the Tribunal accepted that baldness can affect women as well as men, it stated that it was much more prevalent in men than women, and therefore inherently related to sex.
Therefore, in light of the above, the Tribunal held that Mr Finn had been harassed on grounds of his sex.
The incident in question occurred in 2019 and fell outside the relevant time limit in which Mr Finn was required to present his claim to the Tribunal. Exceptionally, the Tribunal considered that it was just and equitable to extend this time limit. This was due to Mr King’s further conduct in March 2021 and because the Tribunal considered this to be an issue of public interest.
What should employers take away from this case?
Employers should be aware of any personal comments being made in the workplace and ensure the appropriate policies, procedures and training are in place to deal with this. This case may also serve as an opportunity for other employers to reflect on their own workplace culture.
This case demonstrates that the Tribunal will not shy away from ensuring that employers create a work environment which is not hostile or intimidating and where employees feel comfortable to come to work each day.
