Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of A v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police UKEAT/0313/14/JOJ the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that a female police officer had been sexually harassed by a male colleague when she informed him that she wished to end their sexual relationship yet he continued to contact her for two days after.

The facts

A, a young female officer in the West Midlands Police Force (“WMPF”), complained that she had been the subject of the unwanted attentions of a senior officer, B, between March 2009 and October 2011.

On 30 July 2011 A and B attended a work-related barbeque. C, a colleague of A’s whom was becoming close to A (and subsequently became her long-term partner), also attended, as did B’s long-term partner (“F”), who was concerned about B’s relationship with A. There was a confrontation between F and B, and the atmosphere between B and A became increasingly tense; A and B exchanged comments later that evening and there was some friction. However, A and B remained close until the end of October 2011.

In mid-September 2011 B helped A to apply for a post in the offender management team, as it was normal practice for a supervising sergeant to assist officers who are applying for new roles. They collaborated in September and October 2011 to put the draft application together and undertook mock interviews. On 23 September 2011 Inspector Rowe informed B that A’s application was not of the required standard; B was annoyed by this as A had apparently not followed his advice and guidance. A alleged that B physically assaulted her by grabbing her arm on this date. On 24 September 2011 B and A had a further meeting of an hour and a half to ensure that the application was completed to the required standard and on time.

On 21 October 2011 there was a road traffic accident involving A’s father. This changed A’s view of B.

On 22 October 2011 B decided to abandon his relationship with his long-term partner and proposed marriage to A. A rejected his proposal on the same day and ended her relationship with B. On 23 and 24 October 2011 B continued to contact A, attempting to persuade her to marry him. A complained to Inspector Rowe about B’s communications and late on 24 October 2011 Inspector Rowe informed B that he was not to contact A. B did not do so.

A’s complaints regarding B were subsequently investigated by WMPF and an outcome produced.

A made the following claims to the Employment Tribunal:

  1. Sexual harassment – alleging that she had been sexually harassed by B between March 2009 and 24 October 2011; and
  2. Victimisation – alleging that WMPF had subjected her to the detriment of failing to properly investigate her complaint because she had made a complaint of sexual harassment

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal held that until 23 October 2011 the relationship between A and B had been an entirely mutual one and that there had not been any harassment (as B’s conduct towards A had not been “unwanted”): A had instigated a number of incidents, the two police officers had been closed, and had regularly exchanged messages of a sexual and emotional nature. Further, A had made no complaint at any point until the end of their relationship that B’s attentions were unwanted. The Tribunal found, however, that B’s conduct towards A on 23 and 24 October 2011 was unwanted, related to A’s gender, and had violated her dignity.

With regards to the complaint of victimisation, the Employment Tribunal held that WMPF’s handling of the complaint process could not be reasonably deemed to be a detriment to A and therefore dismissed her complaint.

A appealed the Employment Tribunal’s findings on both the grounds of sexual harassment and victimisation, arguing that:

  1. The Tribunal’s decision to reject A’s complaint of victimisation on the facts was an error of law or perverse
  2. That the Tribunal’s decision to reject A’s complaint of sexual harassment in relation to the incident that B had assaulted A at the barbeque on 30 July 2011 and that he had further assaulted her on 23 September 2011 was an error of law or perverse, in that the Tribunal had failed to making a finding on either of these complaints

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The EAT dismissed A’s appeals, holding that the Tribunal had not made an error of law or a perverse decision with regards to the victimisation, as it had carefully considered the evidence, applied the law correctly, and had come to the reasonable conclusion that A’s case was not made out.

Further, the EAT rejected A’s appeals regarding the Tribunal’s failure to make findings on the incidents dated 30 July 2011 and 23 September 2011. With regards to the incident on 30 July 2011, the EAT held that although the Tribunal had failed to make a finding as to whether B had assaulted A, the lack of a specific finding should be taken into the context of the Tribunal’s findings on what had also occurred (or not occurred) on that day. The EAT posited, on an alternative basis, that the Tribunal’s failure to make a finding on that particular incident would probably not have affected its decision.

With regards to the incident on 23 September 2011, the EAT was concerned as to the Tribunal’s failure to make findings on this incident but inferred that the failure to make a specific finding imputed that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that B’s grabbing of A on that date (which he did not deny) was not undertaken with a sexual motive or undercurrent.

Our comment on the case

This case is notable for two reasons:

  1. It is a demonstration that, although sexual conduct from one employee (“A”) to another (“B”) might be consented to at one point (and therefore lawful, should A subsequently end the relationship then further communication from B to A may be unlawful harassment
  2. The EAT is normally slow to overturn the rulings of Tribunal’s if the Tribunal has failed to make specific findings of fact, as the EAT will look at the Tribunal’s findings in the round before deciding whether the Tribunal’s failures on the specific points would have affected the Tribunal’s final judgment

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees

Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk.

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago