Claimant v Neerock Limited t/a Woodheads
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the comments on the group chat were not unwanted conduct of a sexual nature directed at the claimant, as he was not part of the chat when they were made. The claimant himself described the image of the mug as 'a laugh'. The tribunal concluded that the comments had neither the purpose nor the reasonable effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating environment. The claimant's reaction was found to be disproportionate and confected with litigation in mind.
The claimant lacked the necessary minimum qualifying service to bring a claim of unfair constructive dismissal (less than two years' service). The claim was not pursued on this basis.
The breach of contract claim was mentioned in the claimant's original complaint but no findings or determination were made by the tribunal in relation to it.
Facts
The claimant commenced employment on 11 December 2023 as a Health & Safety Specialist. On 13 December, before the claimant joined the team group chat, his manager posted an image of a mug he had received as a Secret Santa gift with a sexual reference and cartoon of male genitalia. When adding the claimant to the chat later that day, the Head of Health & Safety commented 'thankfully Barry isn't on here yet is he!' The claimant only saw the thread on 20 December and resigned immediately, claiming he had been humiliated and singled out. He sought 6 months' pay as settlement the next day.
Decision
The tribunal found the claims failed. The comments were not unwanted conduct of a sexual nature directed at the claimant, as he was not part of the chat when made and those posting did not know he could see the history. The claimant himself described the mug as 'a laugh'. The tribunal found his reaction disproportionate and confected with litigation in mind, noting his rapid demand for settlement.
Practical note
Where sexual content is shared on a work chat before an employee joins the group and not directed at them, it will not constitute harassment if the sender reasonably believed the new member could not see the history.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000762/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Health & Safety Specialist
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No