A father has received more than £20,000 in compensation in a job court after his colleagues at delivery company DPD “gossiped” about his flexible working hours and upcoming paternity leave.

Courtney Rawlins filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging a “breach of confidentiality” for allowing her co-workers to know her revised four-day workweek schedule.

The court ruled in her favor, upholding her sex discrimination claim and finding it “unlikely” that a woman in her position would have been subjected to the same treatment.

People Management Survey: Three-quarters of employees say they are more productive working from home

Labor law perspectives on the four-day week

Four-day week activists launch second pilot, but what have we learned from the first?

Rawlins was awarded £20,327.15 in compensation at the Bristol hearing.

Background

Rawlins joined DPD as a delivery driver in February 2021 and, prior to the birth of his daughter, requested a flexible work arrangement. This request was approved in early 2022, resulting in an updated employment contract.

Starting in April, he was allowed to work 10-hour days from Monday to Thursday, taking Fridays off. Their daughter was born in March of that year.

However, Rawlins testified that management was “not happy” with his new deal. He alleged his request for confidentiality had been ignored as “a member of administrative staff did not keep his request to keep his working flexible confidential” and instead told several colleagues in the warehouse, the court heard.

Rawlins claimed that “gossip” about his schedule spread quickly as a result, with a colleague, Mark Jackson, stating: “I don’t understand how he’s allowed to work a four-day week.”

According to Rawlins, gossip and comments among his colleagues created a difficult work environment. Another co-worker described Jackson as “a little jealous” of Rawlins’ deal, which allegedly led to more arguments.

Rawlins explained that this environment made him uncomfortable: “Hearing other drivers and managers talking about me, even hearing that management was unhappy, had the effect of creating a hostile or humiliating environment.”

Additionally, after his shift was reduced, Rawlins noticed that his workload had increased and more packages were being assigned without notice. He told the court that his colleagues often made comments such as: “Well, at least you have tomorrow free, so it doesn’t matter how busy you are today” and “At least you only have four days now.” “.

After what he described as an increasingly tense environment, he lodged a complaint about his treatment in early August before resigning in October 2022 and taking legal action through the court.

judge’s comments

Employment judge Susan Bradford ruled that workplace “gossip” about Rawlins’ extra day off constituted “unwelcome conduct” which made him feel “uncomfortable”.

She stated: “The Court concluded that this conduct was related to (Rawlins’) protected characteristic of being a man because it is unlikely that gossip would have occurred if a woman changed her work schedule or pattern to care for her baby.”

The judge noted that coworkers’ comments, including Jackson’s, created a “hostile or humiliating environment.”

He noted that Rawlins perceived that his colleagues and management were talking about him, with “a level of jealousy,” since Jackson had expressed that the agreement was “unfair.” The court found that the gossip arose from the belief that Rawlins’ flexible schedule caused “something of a problem for the business.”

Regarding the increased workload, the judge clarified that although it was “unwanted conduct,” it was not “related to sex.” However, the court ruled that the “extra day off” comment did relate to Rawlins’ sex, noting that similar comments would likely not have been made to a woman in the same circumstances.

“It is generally recognized that when a woman has a non-working day to care for her children, that is not a day of rest,” Judge Bradford explained, adding that “this understanding is obviously lacking here.”

Although the judge acknowledged that the comments were made in jest, they created a “hostile, humiliating or offensive environment.”

“Anyone receiving this and similar comments would probably believe that the underlying tone was jealousy or something similar, that there was a lack of understanding that caring for a baby is not a day off, but that those making the comments considered that this was of preferential treatment”.

Ultimately, Rawlins felt that his working relationship with the DPD had become “unsustainable”. Rawlins was awarded £10,620.48 for loss of earnings following his resignation and £9,706.67 for emotional injuries, for a total of £20,327.15.

His additional claims of unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal were dismissed. Another complaint of sexual discrimination was also dismissed.

Attorney Comments

“The ruling highlights that employers must treat both sexes equally when addressing these types of issues,” said Shazia Shah, senior associate attorney at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

As societal roles continue to evolve, more men are requesting flexible working arrangements to support their roles as caregivers, mirroring the requests often made by their female colleagues.

According to Shah, employers have a responsibility to consider these requests with the same level of respect and fairness, regardless of gender.

Shah added that what is most important is not the reasons behind an employee’s request, but whether the employer can reasonably accommodate it.

“Employers should not make value judgments about why someone – man or woman – wants to reduce their working hours,” he said, adding that employers should also be prepared to intervene if colleagues react inappropriately or gossip about the situation. tight schedule of a worker.

According to Emma Thompson, partner and head of employment at Thackray Williams, this case highlights “the crucial importance of maintaining confidentiality” and “the potential consequences” when workplace gossip goes unchecked.

“Employers should ensure they have strong policies in place that allow them to quickly address workplace gossip,” he added, noting that immediate action to curb gossip is vital to maintaining a respectful and professional environment.

“Clear policies help set the tone and provide a framework that managers can lean on when problems arise,” he explained.

Thompson also emphasized the need for robust management training around flexible working requests. “Managers should be trained to support employees who request flexible working arrangements and handle any sensitivity-related issues,” he advised.

He noted that clear communication is key: “Employers must clearly communicate the importance of supporting colleagues who need flexible working arrangements.”

Doing so, he said, will help “reduce misunderstandings and resentment,” creating a culture in which employees feel valued and respected.

For more information about unfair dismissal, visit the CIPD issues center