Sir Philip Green, a billionaire business man, categorically denies allegations of sexual and racial harassment and bullying of his employees but, if he had had his way, we would not even know that he had been accused. When the Telegraph investigated the story, Green had his lawyers bring an injunction to prevent his name or any identifying details being published. His lawyers won and, instead, the Telegraph had to publish a story about injunctions stifling #MeToo-style allegations.
Claire Newell reported: “NDAs have been commonly used in business to protect matters of commercial confidentiality but there are concerns they are now being abused to cover up wrongdoing and deter victims of potential crimes from going to police.
“Theresa May has already indicated that she plans to restrict the use of NDAs to prevent abuse, but Parliament has yet to consider changes to the law and campaigners are urging the Prime Minister to act now.
“On Tuesday night, Maria Miller, who chairs the Commons Women and Equality committee, said it was “shocking” that NDAs were still being used to gag victims and should not be used “where there are accusations of sexual misconduct and wider bullying”.”
The reason Sir Philip Green’s name was ultimately revealed was that a Member of Parliament, Peter Hain, used parliamentary privilege – an ancient law from the 1600s that means that what MPs say in parliament they cannot be sued for – to state that Philip Green was the accused in question, scuppering the close to half a million pounds Green had allegedly spent on his legal defence.
So now, the media can report on the fact that he had been named, linking him to the case that we knew had been silenced. Speculation is over and Green, who has a chequered ethical history, many would agree, has been pushed to the front of the news. In the past, he sold the department store BHS for £1, leaving former employees with decimated pensions, and just a few weeks ago he removed a feminist display, promoting Penguin books and the Girl Up United Nations Foundation charity from one of his stores.
Many of the stores he runs are explicitly aimed at female shoppers, so he really could have shot himself in the foot if the allegations of sexual harassment are proved to be true. There are already boycotts in place and staff members at shops like Top Shop and Miss Selfridge are threatening to quit.
Non-disclosure agreements and business practice
I can understand why employers sometimes want employees to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect commercial secrets. You don’t want your top chef moving to your competitor and sharing all your secret recipes, nor do you want your competitor to know the details of your staff’s pay or financial procedures. I have signed them as a freelancer working with external companies several times. But for protecting staff against complaints of harassment and abuse, NDAs should never be allowed to be used. They silence vulnerable and targeted members of staff and protect the rich, privileged men who they are accusing.
And, with a reported net worth of an unimaginable £2 billion, Philip Green is very much one of the rich, privileged few. He’s a ‘Sir’, for goodness sake. Compare that to your average Top Shop employee – a young woman with little power in the working world. To stand up against him would feel like climbing a mountain and your chances of success would be minimal. If a major newspaper is silenced, imagine being a secretary or a cafeteria worker in his offices. With a piece of paper saying you won’t reveal anything that goes on. But even if you are a senior manager or a director of a company, the pressure to keep quiet would be immense.
You’d have no chance.
The workers who went to the Telegraph, those who have accused Green of sexual and racial abuse and bullying, are so brave and I am in awe. I’m too fat for Top Shop and Miss Selfridge clothes but I’ll be steering clear of Evans in the near future, as I don’t want to support a business that tries to silence the press and its employees when faced with potentially illegal activities. I don’t want to buy from sellers whose employees sign away their right to speak, and I don’t want to buy from sellers that have feminist displays ripped away while profiting from a ‘yay you go girl’ subliminal message. After all, it’s our purchases that enrich his bank account.
The only gratifying thing is that the #MeToo message is spreading, and that an MP was willing to cut the crap and tell us who was being accused so that we knew who we were dealing with. He has been accused of wilfully ignoring the judiciary and the law, but I’m glad he did that, and I’m just disappointed that it required an obscure parliamentary law to out this potential abuser, rather than women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds being able to rely on the law when up against billionaires with an endless supply of money to support as many court cases as are needed.
Photo: Matt Brown