Claimant v Eyre Arms Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that a chef, Mr Wragg, subjected the claimant (a minor) to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature including inappropriate comments ('sex machine', 'gorgeous boy'), sexual questions, and inappropriate touching. This conduct violated the claimant's dignity and created a hostile and offensive working environment. The respondent was vicariously liable under s.109 Equality Act 2010.
The claimant did a protected act by disclosing Mr Wragg's conduct to colleagues on 6 August 2022 and to Ms Ewens on 9 August 2022, alleging unlawful sexual harassment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because he made these complaints. The respondent was more concerned with protecting the long-serving chef than investigating the allegations or protecting the claimant.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996 when he disclosed information about Mr Wragg's conduct to Ms Ewens, believing it constituted a criminal offence (inappropriate touching of a minor) and was in the public interest. The principal reason for dismissal was this protected disclosure, making the dismissal automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant, a minor, worked as a pot washer and waiter at a pub from May to August 2022. During his employment, the chef Mr Wragg subjected him to unwanted sexual comments ('sex machine', 'gorgeous boy'), inappropriate questions about his sex life, and physical touching (poking and tickling). The claimant told a colleague on 6 August 2022, which led to a meeting with the employer Ms Ewens on 9 August. At the meeting, Ms Ewens defended Mr Wragg and criticised the claimant for not coming to her first. The respondent dismissed the claimant by letter on 10 August, stating it could not investigate due to lack of detail and that it was inappropriate for him to work alongside Mr Wragg. The respondent did not attend the tribunal hearing.
Decision
The tribunal upheld all three claims: sexual harassment, victimisation, and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal found Mr Wragg's conduct constituted unwanted sexual harassment that violated the claimant's dignity. The claimant was dismissed because he complained about this conduct, both as a protected act under the Equality Act and as a protected disclosure under the whistleblowing provisions (disclosing what he believed to be criminal conduct against a minor in the public interest). The respondent prioritised protecting its long-serving chef over investigating or protecting the claimant.
Practical note
Employers who dismiss young, vulnerable employees for complaining about sexual harassment rather than investigating and protecting them face liability for harassment, victimisation, and automatic unfair dismissal, particularly where the conduct complained of potentially involves criminal offences against a minor.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2602368/2022
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Waiter and pot washer
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No