Usually the forum for humdrum disputes over hourly rates and unpaid overtime \u2013 employment tribunals are not the first place you\u2019d look for an eye-catching yarn.<\/p>\n
But for dedicated followers of the tribunal service\u2019s list, recent weeks have been a purple patch of zingers, with judges settling the kinds of rows that belong more in a soap opera than in civil proceedings.<\/p>\n
Cases have included arguments over whether being called messy is harassment<\/a>, calling your boss a \u201cdickhead<\/a>\u201d is a sackable offence \u2013 another considered if young chatty workers disturbing older colleagues<\/a> breaches equality rules.<\/p>\n Employees who soldier on without complaint might be surprised to see such issues litigated, the fact that they are, according to experts, is down to an unusual confluence of factors.<\/p>\n Andrea London, employment partner at Winckworth Sherwood, said some of the headlines are down to selective reporting of much wider claims \u2013 but another reason for wide-ranging allegations may be that people are choosing to represent themselves in disputes.<\/p>\n While a lawyer would advise on what to include in a claim, a litigant in person (representing themselves) would be likely to cover everything they thought might be relevant.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are the quirky sort of bits that people might be interested in reading about, rather than [the substance of] an entire claim,\u201d London said.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are a lot of very serious claims going through but what we tend to find, particularly with claimants in person, is that they will include absolutely everything in a potential claim, from somebody looking at them the wrong way to being spoken to harshly. So tribunal judges then have to go through all of the issues.\u201d<\/p>\n The respective claimants (both unsuccessful) in the messiness accusation case and that alleging age harassment against an older colleague by younger boisterous workers, represented themselves, an increasing occurrence since legal aid for most employment tribunals was abolished in 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n London said: \u201cSome people might consider it to be too easy now [to get a case before a tribunal] but that\u2019s for the Ministry of Justice [to decide].\u201d<\/p>\n She said that cases did get sifted out before reaching trial but they tended to be the \u201ccompletely outlandish\u201d ones or those that were out of time and that throwing out more claims at an early stage would restrict access to justice.<\/p>\n London also stressed that there was more to some of the recent eye-catching tribunal cases than was perhaps obvious at first glance. Commenting on news reports of a woman who was compared with Darth Vader being awarded \u00a330,000,<\/a> she said the case involved a number of different claims, not just that which related to the Star Wars villain. The former employee was ultimately successful because she suffered detriment as a result of protected disclosures she made which fell within whistleblowing legislation.<\/p>\n In another headline-grabbing case, reported this week, a judge said<\/a> that a boss would not be breaking employment law, for example, if they rejected a job application from an avid Tottenham Hotspur supporter because the office was full of Arsenal fans.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what\u2019s happening and why it matters<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com<\/a> to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n London said: \u201cThe team you support is not a protected characteristic (which it would be unlawful to discriminate against) so, provided they\u2019re sensible about it, employers are allowed to choose a candidate that they think would be the best fit among the other members of staff. Particularly if it\u2019s a small company, having somebody that\u2019s going to get on with everybody is potentially very important.\u201d<\/p>\n While the judge in the \u201cdickhead\u201d case ruled that the insult was not a sackable offence, it does not mean employees have free rein to insult their bosses.<\/p>\n \u201cThe tribunals do try to be consistent with other cases that come through at that level but generally precedents are set at the EAT (employment appeal tribunal) and court of appeal,\u201d said London. \u201cEmployment tribunals are fact dependent so it\u2019s quite tricky for judges.\u201d<\/p>\n John Bowers KC, an experienced employment law barrister and the principal of Brasenose College, Oxford, said: \u201cThere are unusual facts in some employment tribunals but all of the cases are carefully considered and the facts weighed. Frivolous cases are rooted out at a preliminary stage although this could be done more rigorously.\u201d<\/p>\n