The UK has a system whereby people cannot be dismissed at will but have a “right” to their job.

It would be outrageous for someone to be fired because they refused to sleep with their manager or do something illegal. Indeed the former should result in the manager being fired. But should the employer themselves be responsible for the disgusting behavior of their employee? How is it reasonable to expect them to control their behavior, other than by firing them if it happens.

Here are some example of the workings of the UK Employment Tribunal:

An ex-swimming teacher has lost his unfair dismissal case against the leisure center where he worked when the Employment Tribunal found that it was reasonable for the club to sack him after he told a 10-year-girl that it “looks like you work out.”

—————–

An National Health Service trust forced a midwife to quit by making her feel “belittled” at a meeting where it sprung concerns over her department’s medical practice without warning, a tribunal has ruled.

—————

A tribunal has awarded a senior accountant and his junior colleague a total of almost £14,000 ($18,000) after they won a sexual harassment case against a local council over comments from a colleague who said that they were sleeping together …..

Why should the council be financially responsible for something a co-worker said? Particularly if it was true that they were sleeping together.

Amazon must pay its former employee £1,600 ($1,990) after it failed to accommodate his anxiety by demanding that he attend an early-morning occupational health appointment, a Scottish tribunal has ruled.

England’s education and childcare regulator unfairly dismissed one of its inspectors for brushing rain from a student’s forehead, a London appeals court has ruled.

What could possibly possess them to fire this person in the first place?

‐—————

“An employment judge has upheld two complaints by a former Barclays employee who said she was prevented from doing her job because of her painful bone condition, as the tribunal that agreed her manager’s comments amounted to harassment.”

So asking someone to do the job they are paid to do is harassment.

15 March 2024 A local authority in Scotland must pay a disabled employee over £16,000 ($20,376) after an employment tribunal found the council’s requirement to work one day a week in the office exacerbated the worker’s anxiety and depression.

26 March 2024 A tribunal has ordered a country club to pay a professional golfer £19,800 ($25,000) after bosses unfairly fired him amid allegations that he compared a co-worker to Jimmy Savile, an infamous sexual predator, and made other sexual comments to colleagues.

What bs
I’ll bet their claimed “disability” is anxiety and depression

We don’t know all the facts but it would seem reasonable to me for a swimming teacher to discuss a pupil’s level of physical fitness. I would have thought almost essential.

It seems to me unreasonable that a meeting could fairly discuss concerns over a department’s medical practice. Why should a local council have to pay compensation for the remarks made by someone’s work colleague?

On the other hand this golf course was in an impossible position, if they hadn’t fired him then the people he made “unwanted sexual comments” could have blamed the employer.

How can one work or run a business when people can take offence at any criticism and then file a lawsuit?

This is not to say that Sexual Harrassment when a manager suggests an employee should have sex with them or makes truly offensive remarks are acceptable. But who should suffer the consequences, the manager or their employer?

The Employment Tribunal has ruled that HSBC unfairly dismissed one of its former managers that it made redundant. They ruled that HSBC failed to properly consult on the selection criteria the bank applied when picking employees for redundancy,

Why would an employer need to consult with their employees about the criteria they were going to use to make some workers redundant when their jobs no longer existed?

An employment tribunal has ruled that a charity discriminated against a court worker by refusing to acknowledge that her anxiety made her disabled and failing to push back her working hours by 30 minutes.

Too anxious to come into work on time, so the court is supposed to wait for her?

A cook at a Welsh community center has won her harassment and unfair dismissal claims after convincing a tribunal that her manager’s comments about her second job and telling her he was “watching” her were discriminatory.

A subsidiary of retail giant Tesco (supermarket chain in the UK) came down too harshly on a delivery driver when it fired him for insulting a colleague considering that the office had a “lawless” and “toxic” culture, a tribunal has ruled.

Huh? So it’s OK to insult someone if everyone else does?