close
close

The F word ‘especially common in the north’

The F word ‘especially common in the north’

PA Media Stairs lead to the court building marked Alexandra HousePA Media

Labor court rules delivery driver was unfairly dismissed

A tribunal judge said using the f-word was “particularly common in the north” when explaining why it was unfair for a firm to sack a worker for swearing.

Delivery driver Rob Ogden was sacked from his job at wholesaler Booker Ltd in Oldham after swearing at a colleague.

But judge Jetinder Shergill said the swearing was so widespread that Mr Ogden, who had worked there for seven years, had set an unfair precedent.

He said such language should not be used in the workplace but that it was “a common daily experience, particularly in the north”.

‘Unlawful’

Judge Shergill told the Manchester court the disciplinary hearing was fair but employers needed to apply clearer standards and norms in the workplace.

Mr Ogden was said to have used offensive language towards a female colleague in July 2023.

The court heard that during the same incident, an office row about scones, losing weight and joining a weight loss club, he said: “No wonder it took you 19 weeks to lose a stone, it didn’t take me 19 weeks.” ”

The woman involved later lodged a complaint against Mr Ogden.

Mr Ogden told the court the workplace culture was “toxic” and “lawless”, with lots of “joking” and back-and-forth between staff also being “hilarious”.

These included references to co-workers’ weight, use of the term “chubby”, chatter about the “fat club” and fake certificates praising the “winner of the week” left in the office.

The worker who complained about Mr Ogden was said to have given “as much as he got”.

Judge Shergill found that the standards and norms expected in the workplace were not truly enforced by managers and that some senior staff were part of the problem.

He later ruled that the firm had not followed a reasonably fair procedure before dismissing him in October 2023.

“The plaintiff had not previously been taken to court for his comments, which likely gave him a false sense of security as this was not a disciplinary matter,” he said.

“The public person in the office suggested that the plaintiff was the person who did not have a chair when the music stopped.

“There was a real sense that he was setting an example, and that was unreasonable in the context of the public office and the significant failures in the process.”

Another hearing will be held to decide how much compensation Mr. Ogden is entitled to receive.