Sales manager wins £26,000 after boss told him he couldn’t have time off to look after his poorly son because that ‘was his wife’s job’
- Andrew Bailey was left ‘humiliated and upset’ by boss’s behaviour, tribunal heard
- CEO Ian Coll’s ‘traditional’ view on family resulted in ‘discriminatory pattern’
- Mr Bailey sued ARH UK Ltd and was awarded £12,276 and £13,380, respectively
A sales manager has been awarded more than £26,000 after his boss told him he couldn’t have time off to look after his poorly son because that ‘was his wife’s job’.
Andre Bailey was left ‘humiliated and upset’ by his boss, who replied to the request by saying ‘you’re joking aren’t you? She should be doing it’, an employment tribunal heard.
The judge found Mr Bailey’s boss, Ian Coll, held a ‘traditional’ view on family dynamics, resulting in a ‘discriminatory pattern of behaviour’ lasting 12 months.
Mr Bailey sued ARH UK Ltd and was successful in his claims of sex discrimination and unauthorised deduction from wages – being awarded £12,276 and £13,380, respectively.
Andre Bailey sued ARH UK Ltd and was successful in his claims of sex discrimination and unauthorised deduction from wages – being awarded £12,276 and £13,380, respectively
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard Mr Bailey’s boss while he worked at ARH from July 2019 until October 2020, was the company’s chief executive, Ian Coll.
In September 2019, Mr Bailey asked Mr Coll for time off to care for his son who was ill, as his wife wasn’t able to.
The panel heard, Mr Coll replied: ‘You’re joking, aren’t you? She should be doing it, shouldn’t she? It’s her job.’
During the covid pandemic in March 2020, Mr Coll was ‘initially supportive’ of Mr Bailey’s request for flexible working to help support his wife, whose brother had recently died, in caring for their son.
However, Mr Coll then ‘complained’ and ‘required’ him to work despite being on furlough, – even accusing Mr Bailey of treating it like a ‘f***ing holiday’.
The tribunal heard Mr Bailey’s working relationship with Mr Coll ‘deteriorated’ following his return to work in July 2020.
When Mr Bailey made another request for ‘flexible’ work including office based work at home so he could ‘be there for his family’ – the panel heard Mr Coll said Mr Bailey’s wife should be doing it because ‘she’s the mum’.
The panel heard when Mr Bailey made another request for flexible working, Mr Coll told him his job was ‘working for ARH – not looking after his son’.
Upon his final plea for adjustments to be made so he could help with childcare, Mr Bailey asked why he couldn’t work from home more, to which Mr Coll told him to ‘just leave it’.
The panel found Mr Coll held ‘traditional’ views of family dynamic, proven by a text in which he called Mr Bailey the ‘main breadwinner’.
Mr Bailey was ‘visibly upset’ when giving evidence and said being denied the chance to help with childcare had ‘adversely affected’ his relationship with his fiancé.
Employment Judge Paul Humble said: ‘The tribunal found that Mr Coll held a traditional view as to Mr Bailey and his wife’s respective roles to the effect that Mr Bailey, as the man of the family, was obligated to focus on his work and it was his wife’s role was to focus upon the childcare.’
The judge found Mr Coll’s ‘refusal’ to consider Mr Bailey for home working or flexible working amounted to ‘less favourable treatment’ than if he had been a woman.
‘On that basis the tribunal find that there was sex discrimination,’ he added.
‘The tribunal found that Mr Coll’s discriminatory comments and actions were not isolated incidents but rather a pattern of behaviour which took place over a period of approximately 12 months.’
The tribunal found Mr Bailey was ‘adversely impacted’ by Mr Coll’s actions – and heard he had been left ‘humiliated and upset’. For injury to feelings, he was awarded £9,900 plus interest of £2,376.
Additionally, his claim of unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded and was therefore given £6,100 for unpaid bonus’, £3,500 for unpaid furlough wages and £4,230 of accrued holiday pay – totalling £13,830.
In total Mr Bailey was awarded £26,106.
Source: Read Full Article
