Swearing at work is more common in the North, judge rules

A delivery driver who called his colleague a 'f****** m***' during an argument in the office should not have been sacked because swearing in the workplace 'in the North' is common, a judge has ruled.

Robert Ogden made the comment during a clash about his female colleague's weight, following a discussion about doughnuts, losing weight and attending weight loss classes, Judge Jetinder Shergill heard.

The 'violated and shocked' woman was left in tears and reported him to bosses, who eventually sacked him.

However, Mr Ogden is now in line for compensation after a judge ruled the 'lawless and toxic' office was rife with similar comments, and that swearing, including the use of 'the F-word' is common in the north of England.

The judge said the 'dysfunctional' team was led by managers who were 'part of the problem' and whose decision to sack him without warning was 'harsh'.

The Manchester hearing was told Mr Ogden had worked at wholesale provider Booker - owned by Tesco - from 2016 until his dismissal in October last year.

He was dismissed after the woman raised a formal grievance of bullying in August 2023.

She said during an office discussion at the site in Royton, Greater Manchester Mr Ogden was 'very aggressive' towards her and was swearing, which left her feeling 'violated and shocked'.

It was heard he said to her: 'You can't do that, are you a f****** m***? No wonder it takes you 19 weeks to lose a stone, it hasn't taken me 19 weeks - I said it has because I have been dieting as well.'

It was heard she rang a friend in tears and said she was 'sick of it' and that she'd 'had enough'.

After feeling 'humiliated and anxious' she complained to bosses.

Mr Ogden told the hearing there was a 'toxic' and 'lawless' workplace culture - which even saw the shift manager 'pouring sweets' over the same woman's head previously.

He added there was 'mutual horseplay' and inappropriate comments made such as calling people 'chubs' - and that name-calling of the woman by others had not stopped.

It was heard he raised these 'troubling incidents' in an interview with the investigating officer - but the officer ruled that 'people are more sensitive nowadays' and he should be sacked.

Their notes read: 'The comments we have been giving is there is a lot of people discussing a lot of things, there is a lot of banter.

'The times are changing [and] there has to be a realisation, that what once might have been accepted has since now become not.'

The investigator claimed that '99.99 percent' of the time the workplace 'banter' was 'jovial' - but that people are now 'more sensitive'.

The officer concluded the bar of 'what is acceptable' had to be raised, but that it wasn't all 'doom and gloom'.

Further notes seen at the tribunal showed investigators claimed the woman 'gives as good as she gets'.

Mr Ogden was sacked and sent a dismissal letter which admitted there were 'some failings by the business' about his suspension and investigation.

He took Booker to court, claiming he was 'singled out' and that the rules were not applied to others.

He also said that managers including were 'part of the problem' in the office, and he questioned why the business was 'ignoring other infractions of the dignity at work policy'.

Employment Judge ruled the company was 'entitled' to investigate the incident, but that his sacking was unfair.

'I am satisfied that swearing should not be acceptable in a workplace, although common everyday experience, particularly in the North is that the F-word is used quite often spoken in the public sphere,' he said.

On what was uncovered in the investigation, he said: 'That points to a significant amount of banter in the office with the victim being part and parcel of it.

'I am satisfied there was a toxic culture in the office, it was lawless with no real enforcement of expected workplace norms by managers.'

He said there was a 'material failing' by not investigating anyone else who had made similar comments.

'This office was dysfunctional and the managers were part of the problem,' he continued.

'There was clearly a lack of consistency in enforcement of expected standards.

'I am satisfied no reasonable employer would have proceeded to the end of their internal processes without at least having addressed the more substantive failings and weighing up the unusual features of the 'lawless' nature of the workplace, and apparent singling out of [Mr Ogden].

'There was a failure to assess his behaviour in context to a toxic, dysfunctional office where the managers in the office were complicit in that dysfunction.

'That was made worse by a failure to enforce standards generally thereby leading to a culture of 'banter'.

'[Mr Ogden] had not been pulled up before over comments, and this likely led to a false sense of security in terms of it not being a disciplinary issue.'

Whilst conceding his comment was 'offensive' and 'may have crossed a line', he added: 'Having not been informed previously that this conduct was causing offence, the decision to dismiss him when assessing all of the defects and concerns holistically with the process failings, is harsh.

'There was a real sense of him being made an example of, which in the context of the free-for-all office, and significant failings in process was unreasonable.'

A hearing to decide Mr Ogden's compensation will take place at a later date.