Swearing in the Workplace: (in) the North, more common?
Posted on 8th November 2024 at 13:25
This week’s visit to the sometimes weird and wonderful world of the first instance employment tribunal was inspired by the newspaper headline “Swearing at work more common in the North, judge says”. In deciding that food wholesaler Booker had unfairly dismissed its driver Robert Ogden, the judge also observed that its “lawless and toxic” office was led by managers who were “part of the problem”. Let’s take a closer look.
A group of employees were talking about weight loss. Mr Ogden said to one of them “you can’t do that, are you a [adjective/noun], no wonder it takes you 19 weeks to lose a stone.” This interaction took between 10 and 30 seconds. The adjective was 7 letters beginning with F, the noun 4 letters beginning with M, which Mr Ogden later described as a common Northern term referring to “stupid”. Its colloquial nature was carefully contrasted, at the tribunal hearing, from obvious racist and homophobic terms that were not now commonplace in society generally.
Just over a week later, the victim lodged a grievance, claiming to have felt humiliated and anxious. Almost three months later, following two interviews with Mr Ogden, he was dismissed for gross misconduct. It evidently mattered not that there had been no culture change in the meantime, even to the extent that a manager who had been present at the original interaction was not re-interviewed and asked whether he had poured sweets over the victim’s head and called her “chubs”.
Down to the final analysis. The company did prove its honest belief in an act of misconduct comprising a breach of policy. It had reasonable grounds for the belief. However, its investigation was insufficient. It failed to address the evidence of toxic culture, inconsistent treatment, the victim being said to “give as good as she gets”, and the lack of any grounds to portray Mr Ogden as “the angry man of the company”. It did not pass unnnoticed that the company was a well resourced multi million pound organisation, making its procedural failings inexcusable.
Perhaps not surprisingly, dismissal was deemed to fall outside the range of reasonable responses. Alongside the failure to attach proper weight to mitigation factors, the workplace culture came firmly into the reckoning. The judge, having noted “I am satisfied that swearing should not be acceptable in the workplace, although common everyday experience, particularly in the North, is that the F word is used quite often spoken in the public sphere”, tellingly concluded that “the free-for-all in the office suggested the claimant was the one who was without a chair when the music stopped”; it was unreasonable to make an example of him.
No finding of contributory fault having been made, compensation fell to be addressed at a later date. We may once again conclude that timely legal advice may have saved an employer’s embarrassment. Anyone in a similar situation, on either side of the disciplinary divide, may find it worthwhile – before matters get out of hand - to contact David Cooper on 0121 325 5402 or via dmc@coxcooper.co.uk .
Tagged as: fair procedure, gross misconduct, honest belief, range of reasonable responses, reasonable grounds, sufficient investigation, Unfair dismissal
Share this post: