Senior accountant on £150,000-a-year and his £100,0000-a-year younger female colleague win £13,000 payout from Grenfell council for sex harassment after workmate told colleagues they were having an affair
- Francis Austin and Monika Newton have won £13,887 in a sex harassment case
- Their colleague on the Grenfell Tower team accused them of having an affair
A top accountant working for Kensington and Chelsea Council and his younger female colleague have won more than £13,000 in a sex harassment case after a high-ranking executive told workmates they were having an affair.
Chief Finance Officer, Francis Austin, had personally recruited project manager Monika Newton to join his team on a pay packet worth £100,000 a year, to support the London borough’s response to the Grenfell Tower disaster.
But an employment tribunal heard Ms Newton’s arrival antagonised Kensington and Chelsea council’s group accountant, Lesley Shields, who became suspicious the two contractors were ‘ducking off’ to have an affair.
Ms Shields openly insinuated that Mr Austin and Ms Newton were sleeping together and later told a colleague the pair must have gone to a hotel before adding: ‘She’s s***ing his c*** about now’.
Mr Austin, who earned a pay packet worth £150,000, and Ms Newton later complained about Ms Shields’ comments before successfully suing the council after their contracts were terminated, winning combined payouts worth £13,887.
Francis Austin (pictured) was contracted to lead a finance team coordinating Kensington and Chelsea Council’s response to the Grenfell Tower disaster
Francis Austin hired project manager Monika Newton (pictured) in 2019 on a deal that saw her paid sums equivalent to £100,000 a year
Mr Austin told a hearing, to rule on compensation, that Ms Shields’ remarks were ‘highly damaging’ and that ‘going into work not knowing who might be thinking he was sleeping with another employee… caused him considerable stress and anguish’.
Ms Newton had suffered ‘understandable upset about the harassment’ and as a contractor and new to the organisation had been in a ‘vulnerable position’.
Senior accountant on £150,000-a-year and his £100,0000-a-year younger female colleague win payout from Grenfell council for sex harassment after workmate told colleagues they were having an affair
The two council contractors have now been awarded a combined sum worth £13,887 for injury to feelings, with the council told to pay Mr Austin £4,000 plus interest of £1,050 and Ms Newton £7,000 plus £1,837 in interest.
The employment tribunal in central London heard that Oxford-educated Mr Austin joined the local authority on a rolling contract as deputy Chief Finance Officer in March 2017.
The deal saw the senior accountant paid £650 a day, the equivalent of an annual salary of more than £150,000.
In June of that year, the fire at the Grenfell Tower block claimed the lives of 72 people and Mr Austin was made head of finance for the team helping the council’s response to the tragedy. Ms Shields – group accountant at the council – was his deputy, the tribunal heard.
The hearing was told that by the autumn of 2019, tensions between the Mr Austin and Ms Shields had begun to mount, over how slowly the team’s work was being completed.
At the same time Mr Austin met with Ms Newton – an experienced project manager he had worked with before – to discuss her joining to help with a ‘housing legacy’ project related to the disaster.
The tribunal was told that without authorisation, Mr Austin hired Ms Newton on a £450 a day short term contract, equivalent to more than £100,000 a year.
Lesley Shields (pictured) insinuated Francis Austin and Monika Newton were missing work to have an affair
On Ms Newton’s first day in November, the tribunal heard Ms Shields told her new colleague she was unhappy at the way she had been appointed and was not convinced her role was required.
Ms Shields – who was feeling under increasing work pressure – told the tribunal Mr Austin’s behaviour changed after Ms Newton’s appointment.
‘He came in to work late and went home early, and often took Ms Newton for lunch,’ she said. ‘There were grumbles in the team about how little work Mr Austin was doing.
‘Mr Austin was going to all of Ms Newton’s meetings when there was no need for him to do so.’
The tribunal was told that without authorisation, Mr Austin proceeded to hire Monika Newton (pictured) on a £450 a day short term contract, equivalent to more than £100,000 a year
The hearing was told that soon after her arrival, Ms Shields described Ms Newton to colleagues as a ‘c***’ and a ‘bitch’.
Ms Shields told the hearing that on 29th November Mr Austin and Ms Newton arrived at work late, then went to lunch together.
‘She said they gathered their bags and coats at 1:45 pm and Ms Shields asked where they were going,’ the tribunal heard. ‘They said they were going to the Tower.
‘Ms Shields asked why and they said they were going to [a meeting] and Ms Newton wanted to see the Tower. Ms Shields looked at [the] diary which did not show such a meeting.
‘The whole team was under pressure but they seemed to be wasting time and money. She herself was working evenings and weekends and under pressure to meet budgeting deadlines and had personal issues.
‘Ms Shields accepted she said something along the lines of: ‘She’s (Ms Newton) sucking his (Mr Austin’s) cock about now’ to (a colleague). She said she regretted it immediately and apologised.’
Finance Manager Ronica Barard told the hearing Ms Shields initially approached the bank of desks where she and others were sitting and said Mr Austin had nothing in his diary so she was not sure where they had got to.
‘She said they must have got a hotel room,’ Ms Barard told the tribunal. ‘About half an hour later Ms Shields approached the desks again and said: ‘She must be s***ing his c*** right now.’
In the following months, tensions between the trio escalated. On hearing that Ms Shields had told colleagues she suspected an affair, Ms Newton complained to Mr Austin: ‘This is sexual harassment in a workplace and to that effect extremely distressing, derogatory and offensive.’
The council launched an investigation which led to Ms Shields being warned about her behaviour.
In June of that year, the fire at the Grenfell Tower block claimed the lives of 72 people and Mr Austin was made head of finance for the team helping the council’s response to the tragedy
Concluding that the housing legacy project was unnecessary, the local authority decided not to extend Ms Newton’s contract after the end of March 2020. And the following month Mr Austin was told his employment was being terminated as well.
The pair took the council to the tribunal claiming sex discrimination, victimisation and that they had been badly treated for whistle blowing.
The panel – chaired by Employment Judge Natasha Joffe – dismissed the other claims but agreed that Ms Shields’ remarks to colleagues had been sexual harassment.
‘[Her] purpose appears to have been to vent her frustrations about Mr Austin and Ms Newton to her colleagues,’ it said.
Alleging they were having ‘sexual relations rather than working’ would have ‘violated their dignity’ and created a ‘humiliating environment’ for them, it said.
‘The extreme vitriol involved in describing a colleague as a ‘c***’, arose, we concluded, from the particular level of resentment created by the combination of factors we have identified, including the perception…that Mr Austin and Ms Newton might be having an affair.’
In ruling on compensation, judge Joffe said: ‘We accepted that Mr Austin was distressed by the remarks made by Ms Shields. They were highly inappropriate and offensive.
‘We accepted that the remarks made about Ms Newton were highly offensive and she was distressed when she heard about the remarks.’
However, in deciding not to award damages at the higher level of the spectrum, the judge added: ‘We also considered that her presentation to the Tribunal was histrionic and exaggerated.
‘We did not accept that, as she claimed at the remedy hearing, she thought about the remarks every day.
‘We have also found that [Mr Austin and Ms Newton] made use of the fact that Ms Shields had made these inappropriate remarks to seek to improve their own positions at a time when their contracts were up for consideration. Mr Austin was more actively involved in these machinations than Ms Newton.’
Source: Read Full Article
