A father has won over £20,000 after DPD colleagues 'gossiped' about him being allowed to work a four day week before taking paternity leave.
Courtney Rawlins sued his employers after they 'breached his confidentiality' and let co-workers find out about his amended hours, an employment tribunal heard.
'Gossip' that the delivery driver was allowed to take Fridays off had spread round the depot and one 'jealous' colleague even made remarks that his new flexible working arrangement 'wasn't fair'.
An employment judge has now upheld his sex harassment claim ruling it would be 'unlikely' for a female to suffer the same treatment if she were take time off to look after her baby.
Mr Rawlins has been awarded £20,327 in compensation at the Bristol hearing.
Mr Rawlins started working as a driver for the parcel delivery service DPD in February 2021.
Ahead of the birth of his daughter, the father-to-be made a request for 'flexible working', which was granted in early 2022 and he was issued an updated contract of employment.
From April onwards, he was allowed to work 10 hour days from Monday to Thursdays, and would not work on Fridays.
Mr Rawlins - whose daughter was born in March of that year - told the tribunal that management were 'not happy' with the new working arrangements.
The Swindon-based delivery driver claimed a 'breach of confidentiality' meant his co-workers were 'made aware' of his new shift pattern and they 'gossiped about him behind his back'.
Ahead of his paternity leave, co-worker Mark Jackson was overheard to be complaining about Mr Rawlins' flexi-time - stating how he 'did not understand' how the driver was 'allowed' to work a four day week.
Another co-worker at the service described Mr Jackson as being 'a bit jealous' of the new arrangements.
'This was gossip and led to further gossip,' said Employment Judge Susan Bradford.
It was heard that a member of administrative staff did not keep Mr Rawlins' request to keep his flexible working confidential - and instead told a 'number of colleagues' at the depot.
Additionally, the delivery driver alleged that after his days of work reduced - his daily workload increased.
Employment Judge Susan Bradford ruled at a Bristol hearing (that the behaviour was harassment related to sex on the grounds that such comments would not have been made had a woman taken more time out of work when she had a child
It was heard that on some occasions, he was assigned extra parcels - despite having 'not been informed in advance' that this was expected of him.
Mr Rawlins colleagues would often joke 'well, at least you've got tomorrow off so it doesn't matter how busy you are today' and 'at least you've only got four days now'.
That August the delivery driver launched a grievance about his treatment before resigning in October 2022 and taking DPD to the tribunal.
EJ Bradford said the workplace 'gossip' regarding his extra day off was 'unwanted conduct' and made him feel 'uncomfortable'.
'The Tribunal found that this conduct related to [Mr Rawlin's] protected characteristic of being male because there is unlikely to have been gossip if a female changed their hours or working pattern to look after their baby,' she said.
'Indeed, there is now nothing unusual about women changing their working pattern when they have a child.'
The judge ruled that 'hearing that he was being talked about' by his colleagues and managers had the effect of creating a 'hostile or humiliating environment'.
'This is because [Mr Rawlins] genuinely perceived that lots of colleagues and management were talking about him, and that there was, as a minimum, a level of jealousy - Mark Jackson saying it was unfair,' she said.
The panel ruled that comments about his time off stemmed from a 'feeling that he was causing something of a problem for the business'.
On his increased workload, while the judge said it was not 'related to sex' the panel found it was 'unwanted conduct'.
In relation to the 'extra day off' comment, the tribunal found that it was 'related to sex' as a comment of the type would not have been made to a woman in the same circumstances.
'It is generally recognised that when a woman has a non-working day to look after children, that is not a day of rest,' EJ Bradford said.
'Such recognition was obviously lacking here.
'The Tribunal was satisfied that the comment was made in jest and therefore not with the purpose of creating a hostile, humiliating or offensive environment, but that it had this effect.
'Any person at the receiving end of this and similar comments would be likely to believe that the underlying tone was jealousy or similar, that there was a lack of understanding that caring for a baby is not a day off, but that those making the comments were of the view that this was preferential treatment. '
It was heard Mr Rawlins felt as if his working relationship was 'untenable' by the end of his time at DPD.
Mr Rawlins' additional claims of unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, and sex discrimination were dismissed.
