Leicester City Council told to pay worker sacked for sex harassment

The council accepts the dismissal "took longer than [it] would have liked"

A council worker who was dismissed for sexually harassing his line manager will be paid compensation due to errors by the local authority, a tribunal judge has ordered.

The man - a neighbourhood housing officer - was dismissed in May 2019 by Leicester City Council.

The judge dismissed his claims of sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal.

However he ordered the authority to pay him £3,478, due to its "flawed" disciplinary process.

'Unprofessional'

The hearing found the man - who was unnamed - first made advances towards his line manager in November 2018.

He kissed his fingers and placed them on her hand saying: "I know this is unprofessional."

The following month, he put his hand on her back and rubbed it.

He later told a colleague "she's all mine" and sent her flowers at work.

He also sent her a series of text messages asking her for personal information.

• Latest news and stories from the East Midlands

The tribunal heard the woman had told him to stop his behaviour and reported him to her manager.

She said she suffered sleepless nights and the flowers made her "feel really sick".

The man was told to stop all communications with his colleague and he moved to work on another team.

But he sent her a further message remarking on her body and appearance, saying he wanted to reassure her that she was "wanted".

Following this the woman made a formal grievance of sexual harassment and disciplinary proceedings began.

The man was sacked for gross misconduct after 25 years of working for the authority.

However the hearing found the council had failed to gather witness statements and the allegations put to him were "vague and short of detail".

Employment Judge Ahmed said: "The investigation itself was flawed."

He said the woman's line manager should not have undertaken the investigation and that the claimant was not allocated enough time to speak during an internal hearing before his dismissal.

He also found "two serious procedural faults" where there was "unreasonable" delay in dealing with the man's appeal and the panel "failed to consider all the relevant matters and issues".

But the judge denied his request to return to work.

Speaking after the hearing, a city council spokesman said: "In this case the judge took the view our initial letter to the employee facing disciplinary action didn't set out enough detail on what was to be discussed.

"Other judges may, and have, taken a different view in relation to what should or shouldn't be outlined in this first-stage letter.

"It is sometimes difficult to co-ordinate diaries with all parties required to form a dismissal appeals committee.

"In this case we accept that it took longer than we would have liked and are reviewing our approaches to co-ordinating dismissal appeals."