The purpose of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is to protect individuals against stalking and similar behaviour, but it has also been applied to instances of harassment in the workplace. In Rayment v Ministry of Defence [2010] the High Court found that the actions of senior officers towards a female soldier amounted to harassment. The actions included informing the employee that an administrative error meant that she had no job and must repay a month's salary; giving an inappropriate final written warning; a decision to discharge her whilst on stress-related sick leave; and the re-posting of pornographic pictures in the restroom after she had removed them.
The court found that the actions were 'oppressive and unacceptable' and although it is not clear from the decision whether the conduct was also found to be of the type that 'would sustain criminal liability' consideration was given to this issue.
Best Practice
This case highlights the fact that employees can use the Protection from Harassment Act as a way of dealing with conduct in the workplace, as well as taking the more obvious route of bringing discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal. The decision does not take into account, however, that in order to amount to harassment, the behaviour must not only be oppressive and unacceptable, but also be of a type that would sustain criminal liability.
If you would like further advice on harassment, discriminatory misconduct or the implications of this case please contact Caitlin Anniss on 0117 314 5264.
This publication is for guidance only. Reliance should not be placed upon it and nor should action be taken, without obtaining advice in respect of the specific circumstances applicable. We will be pleased to provide such advice or assistance.
