A father has been awarded more than £20,000 in compensation at an employment tribunal after colleagues at delivery company DPD “gossiped” about his flexible working hours and upcoming paternity leave.
Courtney Rawlins filed a lawsuit against his employer, alleging a “breach of confidentiality” for allowing coworkers to become aware of his revised four-day working week schedule.
The tribunal ruled in his favour, upholding his sex discrimination claim, and found that it was “unlikely” a woman in his position would have been subjected to the same treatment.
People Management poll: three quarters of employees say they are more productive working from home
Employment law perspectives on the four-day week
Four-day week campaigners launch second pilot – but what have we learned since 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, ahead of the birth of his daughter, requested a flexible work arrangement. This request was approved in early 2022, resulting in an updated employment contract.
From April, he was permitted to work 10-hour days from Monday to Thursday, taking Fridays off. His daughter was born in March of that year.
However, Rawlins testified that management was “not happy” with his new arrangement. He alleged that his request for confidentiality had been ignored, as “a member of administrative staff did not keep [his] request to keep his flexible working confidential” – and instead told a number of colleagues at the depot, according to the tribunal.
Rawlins claimed that as a result, “gossip” about his schedule quickly spread, with one colleague, Mark Jackson, stating: “I do not understand how he’s allowed to work a four-day week.”
According to Rawlins, the gossip and comments among his colleagues created a difficult work environment. Another co-worker described Jackson as “a bit jealous” of Rawlins’ arrangement, which reportedly led to further discussions.
Rawlins explained that this environment left him feeling uncomfortable: “Hearing that I was being talked about by other drivers and managers, including hearing that management was not happy, had the effect of creating a hostile or humiliating environment.”
Additionally, after his shift reduction, Rawlins noticed his workload had increased, with more parcels assigned without prior notice. He told the tribunal that colleagues would often make remarks such as, “Well, at least you’ve got tomorrow off, so it doesn’t matter how busy you are today,” and “At least you’ve only got four days now.”
After what he described as an increasingly tense environment, he launched a grievance about his treatment in early August before resigning in October 2022 and pursued legal action through the tribunal.
Judge’s comments
Employment Judge Susan Bradford ruled that workplace “gossip” about Rawlins’ extra day off constituted “unwanted conduct” that left him feeling “uncomfortable.”
She stated: “The Tribunal found that this conduct related to [Rawlins’] protected characteristic of being male because there is unlikely to have been gossip if a female changed their hours or working pattern to look after their baby.”
The judge observed that the comments from co-workers, including remarks from Jackson, created a “hostile or humiliating environment.”
She noted that Rawlins perceived that colleagues and management were talking about him, with “a level of jealousy”, as Jackson had expressed that the arrangement was “unfair.” The tribunal found that the gossip stemmed from a belief that Rawlins’ flexible schedule caused “something of a problem for the business”.
Regarding the increased workload, the judge clarified that while it was “unwanted conduct,” it was not “related to sex”. However, the tribunal ruled that the “extra day off” comment did relate to Rawlins’ sex, noting that similar remarks likely would not have been made to a woman under the same circumstances.
“It is generally recognised that when a woman has a non-working day to look after children, that is not a day of rest,” Judge Bradford explained, adding that this understanding was “obviously lacking here.”
Although the judge acknowledged that the comments were made in jest, they nonetheless created a “hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment.
“Any person at the receiving end of this and similar comments would be likely to believe that the underlying tone was jealousy or similar, that there was a lack of understanding that caring for a baby is not a day off, but that those making the comments were of the view that this was preferential treatment.”
Ultimately, Rawlins felt that his working relationship with DPD had become “untenable”. Rawlins was awarded £10,620.48 for loss of earnings following his resignation and £9,706.67 for injury to feelings, totalling £20,327.15.
His additional claims of unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal were dismissed. A separate claim of sex discrimination was also dismissed as well.
Lawyers’ comments
“The judgement highlights that employers need to treat both sexes equally when dealing with these sorts of issues,” said Shazia Shah, senior associate solicitor 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 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 it was not the reasons behind an employee’s request that matter most, but whether the employer can reasonably accommodate it.
“Employers shouldn’t make value judgments about why someone – male or female – wants to reduce their working hours,” she said, adding that employers should also be prepared to intervene if colleagues react inappropriately or gossip about a worker’s adjusted hours.
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 robust policies enabling them to address workplace gossip promptly,” she added, noting that immediate action to curb gossip is vital in maintaining a respectful and professional environment.
“Clear policies help set the tone and provide a framework for managers to lean on when issues arise,” she explained.
Thompson also emphasised the need for strong management training around flexible working requests. “Managers should be trained to support employees who request flexible working arrangements and handle any related issues sensitively,” she advised.
Clear communication, she noted, is key: “Employers should communicate clearly on the importance of supporting colleagues who need flexible working arrangements.”
Doing so, she said, will help “reduce misunderstandings and resentment”, creating a culture where employees feel valued and respected.
For further information on unfair dismissal, visit the CIPD’s topic hub
