Calling a colleague a “nutter” and “ugly” could amount to workplace harassment, a judge has said.
Corleen Maynard, a Royal Mail worker, brought an employment tribunal case, claiming she had fallen victim to racial harassment and discrimination.
In his ruling, employment judge Michael Reed found Ms Maynard had been the target of abusive comments which created an “unpleasant and hostile” environment.
But he dismissed the tribunal claim after finding there was no evidence the actions had been motivated by race.
The tribunal heard fellow postal workers would call Ms Maynard a “nutter” under their breath as they walked past her.
He said one of her colleagues “described Ms Maynard as a nutter, an ugly bitch, mentally ill, grossly ugly and suggested that she had no friends and that nobody liked her.”
But the judge added: “I have not, however, been able to reach conclusions about the context in which these remarks were made or the circumstances in which they were made, because there was insufficient evidence to do so.
“Nonetheless, I have concluded that this was unwanted conduct, which had the effect of creating a hostile environment for Ms Maynard.”
The hearing in Croydon was told that Ms Maynard started working for Royal Mail at the Croydon Mail Centre in November 2001.
Her employment went smoothly until December 2020, when Ms Maynard alleged her harassment had started.
She blamed colleagues of Pakistani heritage for the disputes, and suggested she was the “victim of a cabal within the Mail Centre”.
But the judge concluded the evidence did not support the claim.
The dispute started in December 2020, when Ms Maynard was given instructions and did not think the person had the authority to direct her.
An argument broke out, the tribunal heard, and this led in the follow months to “despicable” and “disparaging” insults being used towards Ms Maynard.
The tribunal also heard there were multiple incidents of co-workers trying to get Ms Maynard in trouble, and evidence was heard about at least two colleagues allegedly recording the employee with their phones.
Ms Maynard complained about these incidents, and in June 2022 an investigation was launched, led by a manager from another centre.
This investigation found that Ms Maynard was the perpetrator rather than the victim,
The manager had closed the report by writing: “Her claims are absurd propositions, preposterous accusations without any foundation.
“She has developed a penchant for levelling trumped up accusations against her work colleagues for her own self-aggrandizement.
“A glorification of all things absurd. The reverse is the case. She was the perpetrator, not the victim, as she portrayed herself to be.”
Ms Maynard’s appeals failed, and she launched a discrimination case which ended in the tribunal.
