Latest news with #victimisation
The Sun
4 days ago
- The Sun
Cop accused of shirking at work in cold weather wins £40k payout following sick leave row
A POLICE officer accused of shirking at work in cold weather has won a £40,000 payout. PC Denise Gemmell has nerve condition neuralgia and was hauled before her inspector for taking time off in winter. He also told her colleagues in Glasgow did not like her and she was a problem to manage. She sued for victimisation and won the payout. A tribunal heard she said she had 'no choice' but to call in sick during winter, when the cold aggravated her condition and caused intense pain. Insp Stephen Gow grilled her on what she meant by 'inclement weather' and if she just avoided work 'when you don't fancy the weather?'. Employment Judge Peter O'Donnell ruled it was an unfair attack as she had no notice. He said: 'It is difficult not to see a degree of vindictiveness.' Last year a record 14,508 police officers signed off from work with mental health issues. Shock stats revealed more cops took time out than ever before for reasons like depression, stress, anxiety and PTSD. Moment blood-covered female cop's nose is broken as she's left in tears in 'brawl with brothers at Manchester Airport' 1
Telegraph
30-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Excluding colleagues from food run could be ‘victimisation'
Excluding your colleague from a food run could be a breach of workplace laws, according to a new tribunal ruling. Deliberately leaving a co-worker out when buying food for other colleagues could amount to victimisation, the judgment suggests. It comes after a Scottish removals firm worker won a victimisation case after he was left out of a food run to a burger van. Sean McGhie won £5,500 after his manager Brian Donaldson bought everyone an item from the burger van apart from Mr McGhie. 'Childish' Mr Donaldson had been upset with Mr McGhie because he reported him for using a slur. Mr McGhie, who is gay, won a claim of victimisation at Glasgow employment tribunal as well as harassment over another slur made by a colleague. In UK employment law, victimisation occurs when someone is treated poorly due to being involved in a discrimination or harassment complaint. Glasgow employment tribunal heard Mr McGhie started working for RHT Scotland in August 2023 in Inverkeithing in Fife as a fitter. 'He makes no secret of the fact that he is gay,' the hearing was told. 'He was comfortable discussing aspects of his sexuality with fellow employees. 'The fact that he was gay prompted male colleagues to ask him questions about his sex life and to discuss theirs. 'There was often such 'banter' between employees which [he] participated in relating to explicit sexual matters.' However, the tribunal heard Mr McGhie felt he was bullied by Mr Donaldson, who called him 'Mr Clean' because he 'took an interest in his appearance', regularly cleaning and washing his clothes. In October 2023, Mr McGhie and Mr Donaldson worked together at a site in Glasgow. 'Homophobic slur' The tribunal heard that the colleagues had an argument about commuting to work. It was told: 'In the course of the argument [Mr Donaldson] referred to Mr McGhie as 'You wee woofter'. '[Mr McGhie] was taken aback and shocked at this comment. 'He asked [Mr Donaldson] to repeat it which he then did slowly and deliberately emphasising the words and looking [Mr McGhie] in the face. '[He] responded by saying that's uncalled for' and left [Mr Donaldson]'s presence.' Mr McGhie felt 'mortified' by the incident and reported it, the tribunal heard. 'The intent of this comment was to insult and it resulted in me walking off a job,' he said. 'I don't think my sexuality should be spoken about in a degrading manner as a result of a disagreement.' Mr Donaldson argued that the remark was 'banter' and that he had used it as he 'thought it may defuse the situation'. He eventually apologised for making a 'homophobic slur'. The following month, however, the tribunal heard he pulled a door closed as Mr McGhie approached it carrying heavy boxes of paper. In the same month, he said 'it f---ing stinks in here' while looking at Mr McGhie as he walked into a room which smelt strongly of onions, the panel was told. Then, Mr Donaldson left him out of a food run. The panel found that Mr McGhie was victimised. 'Intimidating or punishing' Employment Judge James Hendry said: 'This was on one level childish (such as the exclusion from food bought at the burger van) but coming from [Mr McGhie]'s supervisor who held a position of authority over him and given the background circumstances in which these behaviours occurred they are not wholly trivial. 'It was clear that [Mr Donaldson] had not really accepted that he had been in the wrong nor had he truly apologised for his behaviour. 'He was still intent on intimidating or punishing [Mr McGhie]. He still bore a grudge about being disciplined. 'To his employer he minimised his fault but in acting this way to [Mr McGhie] he chose to undermine and intimidate him at a time when he was already upset from the earlier incident.'
Daily Mail
30-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Excluding a colleague from the workplace food run might be against the law, ruling suggests as removals worker wins £5,500 payout
A man has been rewarded with a £5,500 payout after he felt 'victimised' because colleagues excluded him from the workplace food run. Sean McGhie, a Scottish removals firm worker, won the money as his manager decided to buy everyone an item from the burger van apart from him. It comes as 'childish' boss Brian Donaldson had been upset with the victim because he had reported him for calling him a 'wee woofter'. Mr McGhie, who is gay, previously won a separate claim of victimisation as well as harassment at Glasgow Employment Tribunal over a slur made by a colleague. In UK employment law, victimisation occurs when someone is treated poorly due to being involved in a discrimination or harassment complaint. Glasgow Employment Tribunal heard Mr McGhie started working for RHT Scotland in August 2023 in Inverkeithing in Fife as a fitter. The hearing was told: 'He makes no secret of the fact that he is gay. 'He was comfortable discussing aspects of his sexuality with fellow employees. 'The fact that he was gay prompted male colleagues to ask him questions about his sex life and to discuss theirs. 'There was often such "banter" between employees which [he] participated in relating to explicit sexual matters.' However, the tribunal heard Mr McGhie felt he was bullied by Mr Donaldson, who called him 'Mr Clean' because he 'took an interest in his appearance', regularly cleaning and washing his clothes. In October 2023, Mr McGhie and Mr Donaldson worked together at a site in Glasgow. The tribunal heard the colleagues had an argument about commuting to work. It was told: 'In the course of the argument [Mr Donaldson] referred to Mr McGhie as "You wee woofter". '[Mr McGhie] was taken aback and shocked at this comment. 'He asked [Mr Donaldson] to repeat it which he then did slowly and deliberately emphasising the words and looking [Mr McGhie] in the face. '[He] responded by saying that's "uncalled for" and left [Mr Donaldson]'s presence.' Mr McGhie felt 'mortified' by the incident, and reported it, the tribunal heard. 'The intent of this comment was to insult and it resulted in me walking off a job,' he said. 'I don't think my sexuality should be spoken about in a degrading manner as a result of a disagreement.' Mr Donaldson argued the remark was 'banter' and that he had used it as he 'thought it may defuse the situation'. He eventually apologised for making a 'homophobic slur'. The following month, however, the tribunal heard he pulled a door closed as Mr McGhie - who he referred to as a 'grass' - approached it carrying heavy boxes of paper. In the same month, he said 'It f***ing stinks in here' while looking at Mr McGhie as he walked into a room which smelt strongly of onions, the panel was told. Then, Mr Donaldson left Mr McGhie out of the food run. '[Mr McGhie explained that on November 29, 2023 [Mr Donaldson had gone to the burger van outside the warehouse and had bought everyone at work something from the van but not him. 'He took the food into the warehouse and said "help yourselves all bar one", looking at him. '[Mr McGhie said] he was trying to "get the rise out of him" and said that he was trying to remain stable,' the tribunal was told. It was heard the next day Mr Donaldson called Mr McGhie a 'grass'. The tribunal heard another employee at the firm, referred to only as AR, shouted at him at work: 'Where are you you gay c***!'. After Mr McGhie complained about the colleague's behaviour - which he also reported to the police - RHT disciplined AR, but found his allegations against Mr Donaldson had no basis. Mr McGhie was dismissed in January 2024 for unrelated reasons and took the company to the tribunal claiming harassment and victimisation. The panel found Mr McGhie was victimised. Employment Judge James Hendry said: 'This was on one level childish (such as the exclusion from food bought at the burger van) but coming from [Mr McGhie]'s supervisor who held a position of authority over him and given the background circumstances in which these behaviours occurred they are not wholly trivial. 'It was clear that [Mr Donaldson] had not really accepted that he had been in the wrong nor had he truly apologised for his behaviour. 'He was still intent on intimidating or punishing [Mr McGhie]. He still bore a grudge about being disciplined. 'To his employer he minimised his fault but in acting this way to [Mr McGhie] he chose to undermine and intimidate him at a time when he was already upset from the earlier incident.' Mr McGhie was awarded £2,500 for the victimisation carried out by the Mr Donaldson and £3,000 for AR's act of harassment.
Free Malaysia Today
11-06-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Glaring gap in the system of dealing with financial crime
From P Sundramoorthy The recent closure of another financial crime case raises critical questions about the capacity and willingness of the criminal justice system to prosecute white-collar crime in Malaysia. At the heart of the controversy is a scheme that lured investors with promises of high, stable monthly returns. Many of the victims, including pensioners, civil servants, and small business owners, were drawn in by what appeared to be a legitimate passive income opportunity. From a criminological perspective, this case exemplifies opportunistic financial victimisation, where individuals are preyed upon not only for their trust but for their socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Despite the nature of the complaints and the profile of the scheme, police informed victims that the matter is civil rather than criminal. This distinction has effectively denied victims access to state-led prosecution and transferred the burden of justice to the private civil courts, an expensive and protracted route that many victims, especially low-income or elderly individuals, cannot afford. This creates a secondary victimisation, where victims are re-traumatised by a justice system that appears indifferent to their plight. The decision to classify the investigation as requiring no further action raises serious criminological concerns about the enforcement of Section 420 of the Penal Code, which criminalises cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property. In practice, many commercial scams are deliberately structured to blur the line between business failure and criminal fraud. Perpetrators often use partial deliveries, formal company registration, or early payouts to mimic legitimacy. This creates criminogenic asymmetry, where offenders exploit legal and evidentiary loopholes to operate with near impunity. Regulatory inertia There is also growing concern over regulatory inertia: the failure of oversight bodies to adapt quickly enough to hybrid financial crimes that do not fit neatly into existing categories of enforcement. The recent case exposes a glaring gap in Malaysia's fraud governance framework: the lack of a clear standard for when economic deception rises to the level of prosecutable crime. Critics argue that by abdicating responsibility to civil litigation, the state is essentially privatising justice for financial crime and offloading its prosecutorial burden onto victims. This not only weakens deterrence but sends a damaging message that well-packaged scams can escape criminal scrutiny if they are dressed in business formalities. Four ways to reform Legal and criminological experts are calling for urgent reform through the following measures: A statutory clarification distinguishing commercial loss from criminal misrepresentation. A greater integration between enforcement agencies, such as the police, Bank Negara Malaysia and Securities Commission. A dedicated financial crime unit to handle hybrid scams that fall through regulatory cracks. Protection mechanisms for vulnerable victims of white-collar crime, similar to those afforded in domestic violence or cybercrime cases. In parallel, victims are organising to pursue collective redress through a class action civil suit, but advocates warn this is only a partial remedy. Without state-backed criminal action, key perpetrators may never face meaningful accountability. This is a watershed moment for policymakers and law enforcement. If systemic inaction becomes normalised, Malaysia risks cultivating a climate of impunity for financial predators, leaving everyday citizens increasingly exposed to complex, well-disguised forms of economic exploitation. P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research in Universiti Sains Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Daily Mail
04-06-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Female law firm worker sued for victimisation after male colleague mentioned 'pretty privilege' and told her 'good girl'
A female law firm supervisor sued for victimisation after complaining about a male colleague discussing 'pretty privilege' - where better looking women are more likely to succeed. Catherine Guinee reported Aaron Hodges to bosses for claiming that attractive women are more likely to secure contracts, an employment tribunal heard. The 49-year-old also complained that he had said 'good girl' to her and his remarks led to him receiving a warning about the 'need to be careful about his use of language in the workplace'. However, after Miss Guinee lost her job shortly afterwards she launched legal proceedings claiming the firm had failed to investigate her allegations properly. Her claims were dismissed after the tribunal ruled that her employers had not ignored her complaint. The hearing in central London was told Miss Guinee started working at Pogust Goodhead, a London-based law firm with over 500 staff members, in March 2023. The firm set up a call centre for people to make claims relating to the diesel emissions scandal, with Miss Guinee - who suffers from multiple sclerosis - hired as a client services supervisor. The hearing was told that shortly after she started she made the complaint to boss Urika Shrestha about colleague Mr Hodges. Employment Judge Anthony Snelson said: 'We find that, probably very early on [Miss Guinee] did complain privately to her colleague about an exchange with Mr Hodges in which he had said 'good girl' to her and another in which the two had discussed 'pretty privilege', the notion that female candidates regarded as good-looking were more likely to secure training contracts than others seen as less attractive. 'We accept [Ms Shrestha's] evidence evidence that she spoke with Mr Hodges and reminded him of the need to be careful about his use of language in the workplace.' The tribunal did find that Ms Shrestha did not tell Miss Guinee that she had had this conversation, however, The tribunal heard that on April 11 - ahead of a meeting - she sent a message to her boss complaining about competition within the team. She sent another message to the head of HR, saying: 'I have relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. I do not need mind games, being messed around, being pulled one way and another.' She then approached another line manager, clearly agitated, and started shouting that things were 'bullshit' and that she was being denied her access to certain reports because she was a woman. When the meeting started, when a colleague was speaking, Miss Guinee started pointing and shouting at her, the hearing was told. She again complained of 'bullshit' and called her a 'little girl', which shocked the other members of the team. She then called Mr Hodges 'adopted', 'scummy' and a 'money-grabber' and claimed Ms Shrestha was treating staff like 'slaves'. Ms Guinee was then asked to go home and it was later agreed by colleagues that she should be fired as 'she did not meet the standards required for her role'. She then sued for disability and sex discrimination as well as victimisation. Regarding Mr Hodges' remarks, the tribunal said: 'We find that there was no 'failure' to follow up the complaint' and also ruled that her gender and MS had nothing to do with her being fired as no one involved knew of her illness. EJ Snelson said: 'If, as we find, the decision to dismiss was taken at a time when the decision maker had no knowledge of the relevant medical condition, it follows that that condition cannot have been the reason, or a material reason, for the dismissal. 'It was common ground that at the time of dismissal [Miss Guinee] had taken no sick leave. She exhibited no symptoms in the workplace. 'The person who dismissed her was the very person who had interviewed and appointed her only a month earlier. The notion that he was disposed to discriminate against on her grounds of sex is entirely unsubstantiated. '[Miss Guinee] was dismissed in accordance with her contract, under which [Pogust Goodhead] was at liberty to terminate on notice.'
