A warehouse worker accused his boss of sexual harassment – because his name is ‘Willy’, an employment tribunal heard.
Ajmal Aylmer took offence to William McGinty’s name and insisted that he stop referring to himself as Willy, the tribunal heard.
Mr McGinty went by Willy to friends, family and colleagues, but Mr Aylmer asked him to refrain from using the abbreviation because there were female employees at the company.
Mr Aylmer said the shortened version of the name is inappropriate because it is a ‘term for penis’.
He even claimed Mr McGinty was guilty of ‘degrading the whole workplace’ when using the abbreviation on the catering company’s timesheet.
Mr Aylmer – who had only been at the company for less than two weeks – tried to sue for victimisation.
However, his claims have been dismissed by an employment judge who ruled that Willy is a ‘common abbreviation’ for William and Mr Aylmer did not have a ‘genuine belief’ that the use of Mr McGinty’s first name amounted to sexual harassment.
The employment tribunal, held in Leeds, heard Mr Aylmer started working for Dnata Catering UK Limited (pictured) on May 9, 2023
The employment tribunal, held in Leeds, heard Mr Aylmer started working for Dnata Catering UK Limited on May 9, 2023.
The Manchester-based company employs around 4,000 UK staff and is said to be the largest provider of inflight catering and inflight retail services in the UK.
Mr Aylmer, who was contracted to work 40 hours per week at their Leeds’ site, was on sick leave when he raised his concerns about Mr McGinty’s name.
On Sunday, May 28, when Mr McGinty was also off work, the warehouse worker emailed his boss and said: ‘Can you put your real name William McGinty on the time sheet and not ‘Willy’ a term for penis.
‘We have female employees here.
‘And you wanted to be called ‘Willy’ instead of William because you said ‘my mother gave me that name’, something like that so change it please.
‘If you don’t remove it and keep insisting on being called that – I considerate as sexual harassment.’
It was heard Mr McGinty had always been known as Willy – just as his father and grandfather had been.
It was heard the work rota originally referred to him by his full name, but it was later shortened before Mr Aylmer started working for the company.
And, the tribunal accepted that Willy was a ‘common abbreviation’ of William.
Later on May 28, Mr Aylmer emailed Mr McGinty again.
He said: ‘William you are not communicating with me at all.
‘Perhaps you are waiting for at work and I feel it’s a trap and you have done nothing to reduce this.
‘So to reduce tension and create a possible solution to this I am putting myself in voluntary suspension (solicitor advice).’
He added: ‘If I don’t get a response from this I consider this as accepting the suspension.’
On June 20, following back-and-forth exchanges regarding his dismissal, the catering company sent Mr Aylmer a letter informing him they believed he had ‘resigned from [his] position’.
The warehouse operative brought forward claims of victimisation and insisted his email on May 28 was a ‘protected act’.
During the two-day tribunal, Mr McGinty stated during oral evidence that calling someone Willy involves ‘treating them as less than human’ and he did not want to do so because ‘it’s disrespectful’.
But, the panel did not accept his assertions.
Employment Judge Elizabeth Deeley said: ‘[Mr Aylmer] failed to explain why he believed that Mr McGinty’s name amounted to discrimination – he instead stated that Mr McGinty was ‘degrading the whole workplace’.’
The judge said this did not amount to a protected act because the warehouse operative ‘did not have a genuine belief that Mr William McGinty’s use of his first name amounted to sexual harassment’.
‘[Mr Aylmer] had not previously complained of Mr McGinty’s use of his first name and did not provide any evidence of complaints from other members of staff regarding Mr McGinty’s first name,’ the judge said.
‘The Tribunal accepts Mr McGinty’s evidence that his nickname is a common abbreviation and accepted his evidence that his father and grandfather use the same nickname.’
Concluding, EJ Deeley said: ‘The Tribunal concluded that the [catering firm] concluded that Mr Aylmer had breached its absence management procedure because the claimant was absent from work and had not provided a doctor’s note regarding his absence.
‘The Tribunal concluded that it was appropriate for [company] to refer to its absence management policy in these circumstances.
‘In any event, [Mr Aylmer] failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the reason for using the absence management policy was because of his alleged protected acts.’
