And speaking of old-fashioned communication brings me to the case of Mr C Rawlins v DPD Group UK LTD 2024, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether a new father seeking a flexible career had been automatically unfairly dismissed, constructively dismissed, subjected to direct sex discrimination, and harassment related to sex.

Mr Rawlins was employed by DPD Group UK LTD as a collection and delivery driver from 15 February 2021 until his employment terminated on 6 November 2022.

Prior to the birth of his daughter in March 2022, Mr Rawlins submitted a request for flexible working. This request was approved in January 2022, and he was issued with an updated contract of employment reflecting the agreed flexible working arrangement in the same month.

In April 2022, Mr Rawlins returned to work following a period of statutory paternity leave, which was immediately followed by annual leave. Upon his return, he was scheduled to work 10-hour days (06:45–17:30), from Monday to Thursday each week, with Fridays off. In his evidence, Mr Rawlins stated that management was unhappy with the new working arrangements. He also claimed that, due to a breach of confidentiality, his co-workers became aware of these arrangements and subsequently gossiped about him behind his back.

Before going on paternity leave in February 2022, Mr Rawlins was informed that his co-worker had been discussing his flexible working request with other drivers and expressing that it was unfair. The co-worker had shared details about Mr Rawlins’s working hours with several colleagues, and that a member of administrative staff had breached confidentiality by discussing the flexible working request with multiple depot staff.

In early August 2022, Mr Rawlins raised a grievance. Although the appeal did not uphold his complaint regarding an unfair workload, it was stated that, going forward, he would no longer be asked to assist other drivers and would only be expected to cover his allocated route.

Three months later, the harassment Mr Rawlins had experienced from his colleagues, along with DPD’s lack of confidentiality, ultimately led to his resignation. He subsequently brought claims to the Employment Tribunal of automatic unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, direct sex discrimination, and harassment related to sex.

The claim for harassment related to sex were successful. The ET agreed that, under the Equality Act 2010, DPD had breached their confidentiality by allowing co-workers to gossip about Mr Rawlins in connection with his amended hours, permitted co-workers to complain about his flexible working request, and told Mr Rawlins that the reason for his additional workload was because he had an “extra day off” and could therefore cope with it. The ET emphasised that “it is unlikely that a female in Mr Rawlins’ position would have been perceived by colleagues as receiving unjustified special treatment.”

The ET also accepted Mr Rawlins’s evidence regarding a conversation with his shift manager, during which the manager joked, “Well, at least you’ve got tomorrow off, so it doesn’t matter how busy you are today.” Mr Rawlins had also received similar comments from other drivers, who, noticing his heavy workload, would say, “At least you’ve only got four days now.”

The claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed as Mr Rawlins did not meet the eligibility criteria under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Similarly, the claim for constructive dismissal was dismissed because Mr Rawlins lacked the required two years’ qualifying service in accordance with section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim for direct sex discrimination, contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, was also dismissed insofar as the same allegations were found to constitute harassment.

The ET awarded Mr Rawlins £20,327.15 in compensation, comprising £10,620.48 for past loss of earnings, £8,000 for injury to feelings, and £1,706.67 in interest.

This case strongly highlights that men are fully protected under harassment laws when they face adverse treatment connected to their sex, with the ET emphasising throughout the judgment that a woman in Mr Rawlins’ position would not have been perceived as receiving special treatment. The case also underscores the serious consequences of breaching confidentiality, particularly in relation to flexible working requests.