Health Care Worker Awarded £1,400 for Harassment Claim
Complaints included a colleague repeatedly calling her 'auntie'
St. Bernard's Hospital
April 6, 2026
A healthcare assistant working in West London NHS Trust’s Women’s Forensic Services in Southall has been awarded just over £1,400 after an employment tribunal ruled she was subjected to age- and sex-based harassment by a colleague who repeatedly called her “auntie” and made inappropriate comments about her being a “good match” for an older male colleague.
Mrs Ilda Esteves, a 61-year-old woman of Indian heritage, worked as a Bank Band 2 Healthcare Assistant across several secure forensic wards at the St Bernard’s Hospital / West London Forensic Service campus, including Windrush Ward, Pearl Ward, Aurora Ward, and the Orchard Unit.
She brought a wide range of claims against the Trust and a colleague, but the tribunal upheld only the harassment allegations linked to comments made on Windrush Ward, where she frequently worked.
The tribunal heard that Team Leader Charles Oppong, based on Windrush Ward, repeatedly addressed her as “auntie”, despite her “specific and repeated” requests to be called by her name. While the panel accepted that “auntie” is considered a respectful term in Ghanaian culture, it ruled that Mr Oppong, as her superior, should not have continued using it once she made clear it was unwelcome.
He also made repeated remarks on Windrush Ward that she would be a “good match” for an older colleague named George. The tribunal described these comments as an “offensive attempt at humour” that created a hostile and degrading working environment for Mrs Esteves.
Because the harassment involved only one individual and took place over a two-month period, the tribunal placed the award at the bottom of the “lower band” for injury to feelings, ordering the Trust to pay her £1,425.15.
At the start of the hearing, Mrs Esteves applied for an anonymity order due to an allegation that she had touched a patient’s bottom. The tribunal refused the request, finding that the email containing the allegation — written by colleague Elspeth Jefferson, who worked with her on Pearl Ward — was “accurate and true”. The panel stressed that there was no suggestion of sexual intent and that the contact may have been inadvertent, but nonetheless inappropriate.
The allegation formed part of an email concerning a church outing involving a patient, during which Ms Jefferson said Mrs Esteves returned late, failed to obtain consent before a bag search, and touched the patient’s bottom. The tribunal described Ms Jefferson as an “utterly credible” witness and concluded that her account of events on Pearl Ward and during the outing was truthful. It also found that Ms Jefferson’s motive had been to support Mrs Esteves and protect her from potential patient complaints.
All other claims — including direct discrimination on the grounds of age, race and sex, harassment related to race, whistleblowing detriment, victimisation and unlawful deduction of wages — were dismissed. Several of the dismissed allegations related to cancelled shifts on Pearl Ward, Aurora Ward, and restrictions on booking shifts in the Orchard Unit, but the tribunal found no discriminatory or retaliatory motive.
A spokesperson for West London NHS Trust said, “We are proud of our diverse workforce, and fostering a safe, supportive and inclusive environment for our staff to work in is important for us. We have a zero-tolerance approach to any form of harassment or discrimination and continually work to uphold these standards for the wellbeing of all of our staff.”
Written with contributions from Philip James Lynch - Local Democracy Reporter
Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism. Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets. We’ve always done that and won’t be changing, in fact we’d like to do more. However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do. We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area. A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site. One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute. If you do support us in this way we’d be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor. For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you’d like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site. |