Law – Blue Speed Garages Limited
Introduction
The United Kingdom labor law refers to the legal relationship that exists between the workers,
their employers and the trade unions. The legal issues that arise in this case are issues of
incompetence, open discrimination and defamation by innuendo. Tony also feels harassed by
other fellow employees when they refer to him using terms that he feels are derogatory to his
position. ( Collins , Ewing , and McColgan , 2005)
Tony who is a new employee at BSG garage is issued with a warning letter due to his negligence
and incompetence at his work place. (Deakin & Morris, 2009) This is largely due to over
ordering the number of required motor components. Secondly due to his own misfortunes, his
hair apparently turned blue because of his application of a shampoo that reacted negatively with
his hair. Due to this condition he has been nicknamed BSG Smurf, after the Belgium comic Les
Schtroumpfs which refers to tiny blue creatures that live in fictional mushrooms. This action has
resulted in direct discrimination by other staffs and Tony’s feelings have been affected and are
currently stressed that he cannot report to work. The words BSG Smurf are words that imply lack
of seriousness and a direct implication of lack of seriousness at his work place hence Tony feels
that these words discriminate and defame his stature at the work place.
Law – Blue Speed Garages Limited
2
Initially harassment has been a sub-category of open or direct discrimination. Harassment is
currently an independent tort that does not need any comparator. ( Freedland , 2009) This
particular section of the case can be addressed from the 1997 Act, Protection from Harassment
Act and currently under the Equality Act of the year 2010 under sections 26 and 40. These
sections describe and define harassment as a situation where the dignity of a person is violated or
where one is subjected to a situation where one feels intimidated, degraded, ill treated, hostile,
humiliated or offended by the environment. The employer will be directly liable for its conduct
and also the conduct of his employees or even customers if it happens on more than two
occasions then the employer is supposed to intervene. The following case has similarities with
the case in question. Majrowski v Guy’s and St, Thomas NHS trusts(2006) This is a case where
the gay man was directly ostracized by his boss at his work place because of his personal issues
which had nothing to do with his work. The House of Lords held that the laws created a statutory
tort that makes the employer to be automatically and vicariously liable to the tort. Under section
27 of the Equality Act of the year 2010, the employer must ensure that all complaints launched
by the employees are investigated and even if they are not true or baseless the employer must
make sure that the employee is not victimized. This directly means that the employee shouldn’t
be subjected to any situations that may be detrimental. St.Helen’s MBC v Derbyshire (2007)
2) BSG garage must address all the issues relating to Tony’s predicament. The most critical
issues are the harassment claims under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 which can form a
basis for the firm’s manager’s prosecution under the tort of harassment. The management can
also be charged with discrimination as Tony’s hair condition distinguishes his physical
characteristics from the other employees and as such he is vulnerable to open discrimination
Law – Blue Speed Garages Limited
3
from the rest of the employees. The employer is legally bound to protect Tony from being
victimized by the rest of the employees even if he was found to be incompetent or negligent.
The employees must offer unreserved apologies to Tony for their demeaning acts and defamation
by innuendo. Tony has enough grounds to sue the management of BSG garage for Harassment
and victimization. The condition that Tony has found himself is largely due to the taunting and
victimization by fellow staff due to his hair condition and also his negligence at his section of
work. The company should also take all measures to ensure that Tony is able to work
comfortably and is stress free at his work place.
BHS garage can defend itself against a law suit by Tony on the allegations of unlawful
harassment in the working environment under the concept of Ellerth/Faragher affirmative
defense. This defence is available if the employer can provide sufficient evidence that a) BHS
garage managers exercised all reasonable care available to correct immediately any acts that may
amount to harassment b) that Tony failed unreasonably to take advantage of the preventive
opportunities that were availed to him by the management of BHS garage to avoid any further
harassment. BHS can also make it clear that since the incident occurred it has adopted several
policies to discourage any actions that may result to harassment or victimization of any
employee. The company may also prove to the court of law that Tony failed to report the claims
and it took some time before the management became aware of his predicament. Davis v
Regional Health systems.
To conclude, the conditions existing at BSG garage are mostly covered under the provisions of
Equality Act that places a lot of responsibilities on the employer. Under this provision the
employer is vicariously liable for most of the employees working conditions. The Act places
most of these consequences under statutory tort.
Law – Blue Speed Garages Limited
4
Reference
Collins , H., Ewing , K.D. and McColgan , A. (2005) Labour Law, Text, Cases and Materials (2nd
edn) Hart ISBN 1-84113-362-0
Deakin, S. & Morris, G. (2009) Labour Law, 5th edn Hart
Law – Blue Speed Garages Limited
5
Freedland , M (2009) Employment’ in H Beale et al. (Ed), Chitty on Contracts (30th edn) Sweet
and
