Mr M Davies v White Doves Garages Limited [2025]

In this case, the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) confirmed that workplace "banter" can constitute unlawful harassment if it creates an offensive environment, even where the employee is merely in the vicinity of conversations and not a participant or the subject of them.

The Claimant, a motor trade professional with nearly 40 years' experience, was employed by the Respondent from 8 to 29 April 2024. From the outset, there were tensions between the Claimant and management. The Claimant openly criticised his manager, refused to follow processes unless he saw value in them, and was confrontational when challenged. Colleagues complained he was hard to work with, describing him as rude and condescending.

The Claimant worked in a communal office and was regularly exposed to language and conversations amongst colleagues which he considered inappropriate, overhearing them in the background whilst trying to work. The conversations included material of a sexual nature. On 26 April, management met to discuss the Claimant. They concluded he was unmanageable, was damaging team cohesion, and anticipated his dismissal. On 28 April, colleagues discovered that the Claimant had been making covert recordings of office conversations. Staff members contacted management stating they did not want to work with him.

At a dismissal meeting on 29 April, the Claimant raised concerns about discriminatory conduct in the workplace and sought to rely on the recordings. He was dismissed the same day for breaching trust by making these recordings, refusing to follow procedures, and contributing to a breakdown in working relationships. The Claimant brought various claims in the ET.

The ET upheld his claims of harassment related to conduct of a sexual nature and sexual orientation. It dismissed claims of wrongful dismissal, detriment and dismissal for making protected disclosures, and victimisation.

The successful harassment claims were based on the Claimant's exposure to conduct he found offensive within a shared workspace, rather than any direct targeting. This demonstrates that employers should consider the impact of workplace conversations and "banter" on all employees who may overhear them in shared spaces, not just those directly involved. Importantly, the fact that a female colleague was present during some conversations and did not take offence, did not mean that the Claimant was not entitled to be offended. Harassment is assessed based on the effect on the complainant, not whether others found the comments acceptable or whether the individual objected at the time. Although not binding authority, the decision provides useful insight into how tribunals may evaluate informal workplace culture and language in the context of harassment claims.