Sex-related workplace harassment claim won: Finn V British Bung Manufacturing Company

A recent case of sex-related workplace harassment has highlighted the importance of the risks that come with commenting on people’s characteristics at work.  The case of Finn v British Bung Manufacturing Company arose following an altercation between two colleagues followed with a threat of violence. This case was unique as the sex-related comment was made by a male colleague to a male colleague.

Steph Marsh, Head of Coodes’ Employment team, explores this case, its outcomes and what this means for employers.

The case of sex-related workplace harassment

Mr Finn was an electrician at the British Bung Manufacturing Company (BBM). As this is a predominantly male, manufacturing environment, “Industrial language” was quite common. At what point, however, does this language cross the line?

Having worked in the company since 1997, it was in July 2019 that the sex-related harassment occurred. An altercation arose over a piece of machinery, in which Finn’s colleague, Mr King, called him a “bald c***”. King also threatened Finn with physical violence shortly after.

In 2021, Finn was dismissed without notice and went on to raise claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment. All of his other claims were dismissed apart from the harassment case, related to King’s comments in 2019.

The employment tribunal

The employment tribunal found that Finn did not take offence to the use of the expletive which were common to that working environment.  Instead, Finn felt that King’s use of ‘bald’ constituted sex-related harassment. This was because it was a personal attack on his appearance related to a characteristic more commonly associated with men.

The tribunal felt that the words were used to cause distress and humiliate and also led to a hostile working environment. They also agreed that as baldness is predominantly a male issue, the comment constituted sex-related workplace harassment.

The employment appeal tribunal

The Respondent appealed the decision reached by the initial employment tribunal arguing that their interpretation of baldness was too vague. It was their view that to be considered sex-related, the comments must be inherent only in the gender concerned and not of the opposite gender. It was their view that as women can also experience baldness, through choice or a medical condition, the comment could not be constituted as such.

The appeal tribunal did not agree with this position, upholding the decision that insulting a man for being bald counts as sex-related harassment. Interestingly, in this case, the tribunal panel consisted of three bald men, who stated: “as all three members of the Tribunal will vouchsafe, baldness is much more prevalent in men than women. We find it to be inherently related to sex”.

What does this mean for employers?

This interesting case highlights how important it is for employers to have equal opportunities and anti-harassment policies in the workplace. A zero-tolerance stance against bullying, harassment and discrimination should also be established with clear channels to report it. Investigations and tribunals should be handled professionally and treated seriously.

It also highlights that sex-related workplace harassment can still occur even in a predominantly one-sided environment in terms of gender. Even more so in environments where offensive language is more typical or commonplace.

In these circumstances, it’s imperative for matters to be investigated thoroughly and in line with company policy. Coodes’ Employment team has expertise in HR services, discrimination and tribunal representation. If you require assistance, contact Steph Marsh by emailing steph.marsh@coodes.co.uk or call 01579 324 017. Alternatively, you can fill in our online contact form.