Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Today, in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Bailey and Avon Fire and Rescue Service, in which an employment tribunal was asked to determine whether an employer can discipline a manager for failure to challenge sexist behaviour in the workplace in the context of a constructive dismissal claim. B worked for a fire and rescue service as a watch manager, a senior role which gave B significant line management responsibility. A female firefighter, A, from B's watch, complained of an openly misogynistic and discriminatory workplace culture, eventually resigning and successfully bringing discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal claims. Before his employment claims concluded, following an internal investigation, disciplinary action was taken against B as watch manager. This disciplinary process resulted in B being given a final written warning, his £100 monthly CPD allowances being suspended for a year, and he was moved from his firefighting duties to a desk-based role. A few months later, Bea resigned and brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim, alleging that the fire service had fundamentally breached his trust and confidence. In its defence, the fire service argued that B's contract made it clear that part of his watch manager role had been to challenge unacceptable behaviour among colleagues under his supervision Be had been issued with a final written warning and removed from his watch manager role after an internal investigation had found a culture of sexist jokes and banter based on gender stereotypes, and that B had not intervened when colleagues he supervised made sexist jokes. B had also failed to properly handle an informal mediation between A and the male colleague, who featured most heavily in her complaint, failing to step in when this meeting escalated into intimidation and a potential physical assault towards A. The Employment Tribunal held that, in imposing the disciplinary sanctions that it did, The employer did not act in a way calculated to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. B held a position of seniority and had leadership responsibility to help foster a workplace that was inclusive and respectful by addressing behaviour that was not inclusive or respectful. While the inappropriate words and behaviours were not his own, but rather those of members of his watch, B did not intervene to prevent them. Further, the role change imposed on B was considered a supportive measure designed to give BA chance to step away from managing a challenging fire service watch, have a break and reset. The tribunal dismissed B's constructive unfair dismissal claim. Although this decision is not binding on future tribunals, it highlights the increased expectation that employers will not merely train staff on what sexual harassment is and how to avoid it, but also train and enable their managers to set a good example. challenge inappropriate behaviours in the workplace and properly handle any concerns or complaints that arise. In appropriate circumstances, disciplinary action can be taken against managers who fail to do so. This principle will increase in importance when the existing duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment becomes a duty to take all reasonable steps from October 2026. The take-home lesson here is that a failure to intervene and deal with banter properly can have consequences. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.