A female Co-op lorry driver has won £19,000 compensation after a colleague accused her of 'flashing' her breasts to get what she wanted.
HGV driver Charlotte Brooks was sent a voice note by Kerry Dawson saying just because she has 't*ts' she thinks she can flash them at anybody and anyone will do anything for her'.
Ms Dawson also accused Ms Brooks of performing sexual favours to get her own way.
The lorry driver said that the 'bullying' continued for two years, and Co-Op agreed that Ms Dawson's comments amounted to sexual harassment.
Ms Dawson was sacked but successfully appealed and was able to return to work – leaving Ms Brooks anxious and distressed.
Ms Brooks has now won £19,042 for claims of sexual harassment and direct sex discrimination after suing Co-operative Group.
An employment tribunal heard Ms Brooks started working for Co-op on January 17, 2022, as an apprentice lorry driver, and she still works at the company as a fully qualified HGV driver.
Ms Dawson was also training as a driver at the same time.
Charlotte Brooks was left 'very upset and gutted' by her colleague's comments, the tribunal heard
Ms Brooks (pictured) and Kerry Dawson were apprentice lorry drivers with Co-operative Group when the 'inappropriate' conduct started
While on a training course that summer for their Class 1 HGV licence, Ms Dawson alleged to driving instructors that Ms Brooks would perform oral sex to get what she wanted.
Ms Brooks was 'very upset and gutted' when she found out this comment had been made about her.
She told her manager about it, but did not want to attend mediation because she thought this would not solve the issue.
The HGV driver said there were more instances of bullying from Ms Dawson and that the situation escalated.
She said that in October 2024, she was sent a voice note by Ms Dawson which said: 'Just because she's got f****** t*ts she thinks she can flash them at anybody and anyone will do anything for her.'
Ms Brooks submitted a grievance about this and it was investigated by Co-op, the tribunal in Exeter was told.
The company found that Ms Dawson's conduct between June 2022 and October 2024 had been 'inappropriate'.
In a meeting about Ms Dawson's behaviour, disciplinary manager John Rowan said to her: 'You freely admitted during our meeting that what you did was wrong and that you had been stupid in your actions.'
Charlotte Brooks was training to drive HGVs like this for the Co-op when she was sexually harassed
A judge at Exeter Employment Tribunal said that if the conduct involved 'members of the opposite sex' it would have been taken more seriously
He said that as she had admitted what she had done and the company had a 'zero-tolerance approach' to this type of behaviour, she would be dismissed.
Ms Dawson appealed, and the decision to dismiss her was overturned and replaced with a written warning.
A distribution manager who was appointed as appeal manager said there had been 'historical conflict' between the two women, ruled the original decision had been 'procedurally flawed'.
He said that the original meeting failed to give Ms Dawson relevant information prior to the hearing and that there was 'hearsay evidence'.
Ms Brooks was told that Ms Dawson would be returning to the workplace in January 2025, with no discussion of safeguarding arrangements for her.
After hearing this news, Ms Brooks became so 'distressed' that she signed herself off as unfit for work due to work-related stress, and she remained off work until February.
Employment Judge Paula Volkmer said that Ms Dawson's comments amounted to sexual harassment.
She said that the appeal process had not taken into account the seriousness of Ms Dawson's conduct and the effect that this had on Ms Brooks.
The judge said the original decision was overturned on appeal despite a lack of new evidence in relation to the alleged acts.
Ms Volkmer said that following a complaint by Ms Brooks, the appeal manager was asked to explain his decision to overturn the original disciplinary decision.
She said: 'In answering, notwithstanding Ms Dawson's admission, the first thing he referred to was "there being no evidence to support the original decision to dismiss".'
Ms Volkmer said there was a 'theme of minimising the harassment of a sexual nature which (she) had been a victim of'.
She continued: 'I consider that these are facts from which, ignoring any explanation given by (Co-op), a Tribunal could reasonably infer a (perhaps subconscious) view that harassment of a sexual nature between two women is not serious and is instead viewed as a conflict between colleagues.
'I consider that if the conduct had been between members of the opposite sex, (the appeal manager) would have taken it more seriously.'
Ms Volkmer said that Co-op should have put safeguarding measures in place for Ms Brooks when Ms Dawson returned to the office.
She said: 'In the circumstances, it took a complaint from (her) before (Co-op) actively cast its mind to taking any measures.'
Ms Volkmer said that these events left Ms Brooks feeling 'humiliated' and anxious until September 2025, when she was still attending therapy.
Ms Brooks' claim of victimisation was unsuccessful.