Tribunal finds calling a man 'bald' is sexual harassment

Finn v The British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd

The claimant was an electrician who worked for the respondent for 24 years.

On 24th July 2019, the claimant became embroiled in an exchange with Mr King, a shift supervisor at the respondent’s factory. Mr King called the claimant “a bald c***” and also threatened the claimant with physical violence. Statements were taken from the claimant and Mr King about what had occurred but no further action was taken by the respondent at the time, as the claimant agreed to let bygones be bygones. 

Nothing further happened until 25 March 2021, when a further exchange took place between the claimant and Mr King, which ended with the claimant leaving the respondent’s premises as he feared for his personal safety. The claimant did not hear anything further from the respondent until he raised a query regarding his payslip. This prompted the respondent to invite the claimant to an investigatory meeting about what had happened during the incident which took place in March. 

The claimant’s son assisted with the preparation of a statement which was put on a template headed ‘West Yorkshire Police’ and included the words “WITNESS STATEMENT (Criminal Justice Act 1967, s9; Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s5B; Criminal Procedure Rules, Rule 16.2)”. The respondent felt that the implications of the statement were ‘very serious’ and that the claimant was trying to intimidate the respondent. Although the claimant tried to assure the respondent that the statement was not a police statement and the incident had not been reported to the police, the respondent decided that the claimant had deliberately sought to use the West Yorkshire Police headed paper and he had not been sufficiently apologetic about this. As a result the claimant was fired for gross misconduct and he brought various claims in the employment tribunal further to his dismissal. 

The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claims of sexual harassment, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal but dismissed a claim for age discrimination. 

Whilst it was commonplace that the language used in the workplace was ‘industrial’, the judge in this case found that the comments made by the claimant’s supervisor in relation to the claimant’s baldness, were personal, unwanted and related to the claimant’s sex on the basis that baldness was “much more” prevalent in men than women and was “inherently related to sex”. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal referred to a previous case where a male colleague had made a comment on the size of a woman’s breasts and whilst it was acknowledged that men can grow breast tissue, this was not common and therefore the comment was found to be related to the individual’s sex. 

What employers should take away from this case is that the law on harassment can capture a huge range of behaviour and comments which are made in the workplace, regardless of the intention of the person making the comments. 

By having up-to-date workplace policies which outline what is acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour, applying those policies in practice and delivering appropriate training to staff, especially managers, an employer can help reduce the risk of these types of claims being brought against it by its workforce.