Woman wins £17,000 over ‘ginger’ abuse

A red-headed waitress taunted about her hair colour won £17,618 in compensation.

Mother-of-three Sarah Primmer claimed sexual harassment and unfair dismissal against a Turkishrun kebab shop and café where she worked.

The 41-year-old, of Plymouth, told an employment tribunal: ‘I was regularly sexually harassed by my employers.

‘They would make lewd and embarrassing comments about me and ask me intimate questions about my personal life.

‘These included asking questions about the colour of my pubic hair, the size of my breasts and the size of my boyfriend’s penis, all of which I found insulting and demeaning.’

The divorcee, who now has blonde highlights, said she was ’staggered’ by the size of the award against the Rendezvous Café, where she was employed from November 2004 until October last year.

 

EU court dismisses safety claim against UK

The European Union’s top court has today dismissed allegations that British limits on how far companies need to go in ensue the health and safety of their employees break the bloc’s laws.The case was brought by the European Commission, which argued that the Health and Safety at Work Act – requiring employers to ensure the health and safety of workers only “so far as is reasonably practicable” – did not fully comply with EU rules.

“The court dismisses the Commission’s action against the ‘reasonably practicable’ qualification contained in the United Kingdom legislation on health and safety of workers,” the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice said in a statement.

The ruling will come as a welcome relief to British businesses and the government.

The Commission had accused Britain of allowing an employer to escape responsibility if it could prove that measures to ensure safety of workers were grossly disproportionate in terms of money, time or trouble when balanced against the relevant risk.

“The Court concludes that the Commission has not established in what way the disputed clause, considered in the light of the national case law cited, infringes the provisions of the (EU) directive,” the court said.