In the case of Ms M Travers v Places for People Leisure Ltd and Others: 3201488/2019 an employee was successful in suing her employer for sexual harassment after a number of unwanted touching incidents from a male employee. The Tribunal also found that her employer had failed to implement anti-harassment policies that they had put in place, rendering them worthless.
The facts in Ms M Travers v Places for People Leisure Ltd and Others
Ms M T Travers commenced employment at Blackwater Leisure Centre part of Places for People Leisure Limited (first respondent) initially as a full time lifeguard before becoming a part-time receptionist and recreation assistant (following a series of blackouts) from 18 May 2015. She was 20 years old at the time. Her line manager was Ms Abbot-Jones (the third respondent), the Operations Manager. During the course of her employment she alleged:
- That she was subjected to sexual harassment;
- That she was subjected to age discrimination;
- That there was an unlawful deduction from her wages;
- That she was unfairly constructively dismissed.
In June 2017 the company introduced an E-learning platform which amongst other things covered their policies on sexual harassment.
On 18 December 2018, Ms Travers was involved in an altercation with a male employee G, who worked as a maintenance engineer for the company. She made a statement alleging inappropriate touching by G. Ms Abbot-Jones told her that an investigation would be carried out. At this stage the Claimant had not mentioned the two other earlier incidents involving G. Mr Mark Taylor the Contracts Manager (second respondent) oversaw the grievance hearing.
Ms Travers did not come back into work after 19 December 2018. She was signed off work sick for anxiety disorder due to the actions of G.
On 20 December 2018, Ms Abbot-Jones arranged the date for the grievance hearing and sent out the letter which Mr Taylor approved and signed and a copy of the grievance policy was also sent to the Ms Travers. Mr Taylor took the decision as both G and Ms Travers were on leave that on their return they could work alternative shifts (as G only worked 2 days a week) allowing them both working whilst avoiding having to see each other.
On 8 January 2019 there was a grievance meeting where Ms Travers attended with her companion Lesley Davies.
On 24 January 2019, Mr. Taylor had a follow up grievance meeting with Ms Travers. Ms Travers raised the issue of two other historic allegations regarding G and her concerns on the way they were handled by Ms Abbot-Jones.
On 20 March 2019 Mr Taylor wrote to Ms Travers confirming his decision on her grievance. In summary :
- CCTV evidence inclusive but combined with other evidence more likely than not inappropriate touching occurred – allegation partially upheld
- Touching abdomen area – allegation upheld
- Charge of insensitive behaviour by Ms. Abbot-Jones handling of complaints – allegation partially upheld
Ms Travers appealed the grievance outcome and he appeal hearing was held on 8 April 2019 dealt with by Mr Simon Churchman. Mr Churchman found no failings in the way the grievance procedure was handled.
On 1 May 2019 tendered her resignation with effect from 5 May 2019.
Ms Travers brought claims to the Employment Tribunal for constructively unfairly dismissed, sex harassment, age discrimination and unlawful deduction from her wages in her Claim Form submitted on 23 May 2019.
The decision of the Employment Tribunal
Sexual harassment
The ET found in favour of Ms Traver’s claim for sexual harassment. They found that G had sexually harassed Ms Travers by doing the following:
- That G had inappropriately touched her on 18 December 2018, and that he had sexually harassed her on two previous occasions
The Tribunal further held that the Places for People Leisure Ltd had not taken any reasonable steps to prevent the harassment occurring, so it could not defend itself from vicarious liability for G’s conduct (under section 109 Equality Act 2010): the company’s policies regarding sexual harassment had been put in place prior to the acts of sexual harassment but did not “have teeth” and did not prevent G from sexually harassing the Claimant.
You can read more about the law relating to sexual harassment here.
Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal rejected Ms Travers’ claim for constructive unfair dismissal finding there had been no fundamental breach in her contract in the way her grievance was handled or that the organisation’s treatment of the grievance had caused her to resign.
Age discrimination
The Tribunal also rejected her claim for age discrimination, finding that her treatment that the organisation treated her the same way that it would have treated anyone at the organisation who had made a complaint of sexual harassment.
Unlawful deduction from her wages
The Employment Tribunal rejected her claim for unlawful deduction from wages, holding that a deduction had been made but that this deduction was legitimate: it was simply recouping money that the Claimant had inadvertently been overpaid by the organisation as full sick pay rather than Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), and therefore not an unlawful deduction from her wages.
Our lawyers view on Ms M Travers v Places for People Leisure Ltd and Others
Steve Norton, an advanced paralegal at Redmans, commented on the case “In this case the failure of the employer to take reasonable steps to ensure all staff were properly trained up in their policies, in this case sexual harassment, proved fatal to their case, merely having the policies in place was not sufficient.”
The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Ms M Travers v Places for People Leisure Ltd and Others: 3201488/2019 can be found here.