Company boss must pay £2,000 compensation

Thirty-nine-year-old former sales team leader Kirsty Williams had sued 62-year-old Tom Sperrey and the Hungerford company he co-owns with his 56-year-old wife, Karen, for sexual harrassment, victimisation and sexual discrimination.
Mr Sperrey has run UPS Systems, a small family company which provides jobs for around 20 local people, for the past 20 years.
He had denied committing the offences against Miss Williams, of Great Bedwyn.
The former employee told a tribunal judge in Reading last month (March) that Mr Sperrey “had a reputation for being a lech” in the office.
The company said that the allegations only surfaced last August after Miss Williams was told her probationary period was going to be extended by a further six months because she had taken 32 days off sick since joining the firm in January last year.
Giving evidence, Mr Sperrey claimed he went to Miss Williams’ house last July “to see if she was swinging the lead or if there was something wrong.”
He advised her to see an osteopath and added: “I did touch her bare back, it’s true. It was clearly a big mistake on my part.”
However, Mr Sperrey refuted the allegation he had asked Miss Williams for a kiss but admitted he had made a “crass remark” when she was bent down at his desk.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the tribunal panel reserved its judgement for several weeks but has now published its findings.
It said it had been faced in several instances with directly conflicting evidence from Mr Sperrey and from Miss Williams but that while she had testified “in all respects credibly,” her former boss’s testimony was “not entirely consistent.”
The tribunal found that Mr Sperrey had asked for a kiss under such circumstances that his conduct was “of a sexual nature” amounting to sexual harassment.
It also found that when he touched her bare skin, his intention was “to be certain that she had a genuine back problem.”
Nevertheless, the tribunal added, “touching a female member of staff on the skin in the small of her back without her consent has the effect of undermining her dignity. In those circumstances, the tribunal are unanimous that it was an act of sexual harassment.”
The tribunal heard from Miss Williams’ GP who said she had “vivid flashbacks of the incident at her home” and that she was “unable to sleep well or concentrate to the extent that she finds the daily tasks of living difficult to perform. She has had thoughts that her life is not worth living and has become depressed.”
However the tribunal also noted that Miss Williams had seemed more concerned about references to her performance at work and that “her conduct after the final incident did not even hint that there was a problem.”
The tribunal unanimously found proven the allegation of sexual harassment but dismissed the allegations of victimisation and sexual discrimination.
Mr Sperrey was ordered to pay Miss Williams £2,000 in compensation.