SEX DISCRIMINATION LEGAL VICTORY

RMT helpline 0800 376 3706 :: october 2021 :: RMTnews 23 R MT recently won a recent claim of direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment for a member who was employed as a Train Cleaner Team Leader based at Paddington station against her employer, Atalian Servest Limited. Our member claimed that from June 2020 a clique at work had begun to taunt her by referring to her as “X”. X is a controversial social media personality from Goa, where our member is also from. X swears and fights in her online videos. Our member explained that another Team Leader had told her that she looked like X and told his friends at work to also call the member by that name. The member made it clear to her colleagues that she found their behaviour offensive and she informed her employer that she was being bullied. Unfortunately, by August 2020 the member had to take leave to remove herself from the situation at work. On her return to work in September 2020, two of colleagues were playing a video of X on a mobile phone in the messroom. They referred to X as having a “loud and harsh voice” and that her husband had left her. One of these colleagues had previously called our member the name X to her face. The member explained that her colleague then made a vulgar sexualised comment about X and X’s young daughter whilst watching the video. The member explains that this individual knew that she also had a young daughter. She was so upset that she left the messroom. The following day another colleague who had been present in the messroom the day prior also made a crude and offensive sexualised comment about X and her daughter. Our member explained that this individual had seen how upset she had been the previous day. Our member was deeply upset by the comments. She could not sleep or eat and did not want to attend work and felt like resigning. The member again complained to her employer. She explained that she was being harassed and it was making her ill. the member was signed off work due to stress and lost almost £1,000 in wages as a result. She was supported by the RMT Paddington No 1 Branch who also complained to Atalian regarding the treatment she had been subjected to. She was assured by her employer that her complaints would be fully investigated. She attended an investigation meeting and explained that her colleague was her supporting witness. The member attended a follow-up meeting and was informed that the investigating manager had interviewed those involved and that they had denied any wrongdoing. Her complaint was not upheld. The investigating manager had not been interviewed at this point. The member requested that her colleague was interviewed as her witness. He attended an investigating meeting in December 2020 but was not asked about the incidents that took place in September 2020. The employer suggested that she move shifts or attend mediation with the individuals who were harassing her which she refused. She was not at fault and a change of shift would disrupt her personal life. Nor was she content with the investigation. Instead, she sought legal advice from the union. RMT submitted claims for direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment based on the comments in September 2020 and argued that Atalian Servest Limited is vicariously liable for the actions of these individuals. At the Employment Tribunal hearing the member was represented by Paul Powlesland, of Garden Court Chambers. Under his cross-examination, the employer’s investigating manager accepted that her investigation had inadequacies. She also accepted in the Tribunal that there were insufficient polices in place to protect the member and other employees from macho, sexist and unacceptable language in the workplace. The Employment Tribunal found the employer’s investigating manager should have identified her colleague as a corroborating witness and that she took the word of the alleged harassers at face value without challenging them. The Employment Tribunal found that this evidence was very reliable and fully corroborated the member’s evidence. The only alleged harasser who gave evidence was found by the Employment Tribunal as being full of inconsistencies. As a result, it was easy for the Tribunal to find uphold her claim. They awarded compensation, including lost wages and a substantial award for injury to her feelings. The member has expressed her gratitude to the union for representing her in her claims and is delighted with the result. She continues to be supported by her local representatives in her return to work following the Employment Tribunal hearing. LEGAL SEX DISCRIMINATION LEGAL VICTORY