Internal report into claims against Green ‘ignored bottom slapping’
Arcadia’s in-house lawyer Deborah Cooper was told to question staff but corroborating evidence of physical contact did not appear in the final report
Claire Newell, Hayley Dixon, Callum Adams and Sophie Barnes FOR EMPLOYEES at Arcadia, autumn 2017 had been a busy time. Not only were they preparing for Christmas, but many of them had been called into “sensitive” meetings at the company’s headquarters, Colegrave House.
Heads of department, senior executives, even the company’s owner – all were asked what they had seen on specific days.
Despite the attempts at secrecy, many people within the company knew what was going on. The meetings had nothing to do with sales figures or a new product launch – Sir Philip Green had been accused of sexually harassing a senior female executive and a lawyer working for the company had been asked to carry out an inquiry.
Accusations included “smacking” and “slapping” the woman’s bottom, her waist being “groped”, her face being kissed. Many of the incidents had allegedly happened in the middle of the office.
The accusations were not only serious, but potentially “toxic” for an organisation selling clothes to teenage girls and women, especially since the MeToo movement, which raised questions about abuse of power and how women are treated in the workplace.
Deborah Cooper – a lawyer working for the company – was reliant upon the testimony of other people who were said to have seen the alleged abuse.
By the end of November, Ms Cooper was preparing to write her report.
Sources told The Telegraph that while she concluded that the businessman had probably made comments about the woman’s weight, shouted and sworn, prodded or poked, the claims of sexual harassment were shrugged off.
Within five months, the case was settled and it could have ended there.
However, at around the same time as the claim was progressing, journalists from The Telegraph were investigating allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Sir Philip.
Among accusations of sexual and racial harassment, they also heard claims that the firm was involved in a “cover up”.
According to well-placed sources, two of the executives interviewed by Ms Cooper appeared to have corroborated some of the accusations made by the female executive during the interviews that took place towards the end of 2017. The Telegraph can now reveal that these comments were missing from the final report.
One of the witnesses, who held a senior finance position within the firm, said that although he could not remember a specific meeting where an incident allegedly took place, he had witnessed Sir Philip “slap” the woman’s bottom and threatened to “smack” her on other occasions.
It is understood that he believed the billionaire’s behaviour made the woman feel “uncomfortable” and she felt like she had to “put up with it”.
The witness said that Sir Philip had “hit” other women’s bottoms and “squeezed” their knees and thighs. He also claimed that Sir Philip made comments about women being overweight and “massaged people”.
However, it is understood that the final report only stated that the executive could not “recall” a specific meeting in question. Crucially, it did not reflect the comments about the woman’s bottom being slapped, or what he had allegedly seen happen to other women.
A second witness also appeared to back up the woman’s claims when he told the lawyer that he had seen Sir Philip “slap” the woman’s bottom on the way to a meeting, which made her “distressed”.
He also claimed to have been “slapped” around the face by the billionaire in meetings.
Sources familiar with the inquiry said that the evidence from the second man was apparently retracted at a later date and his original claims were not reflected in the report.
The Telegraph can also reveal that some of Sir Philip’s own comments about the woman who complained are said to have been omitted from the final report. The businessman alleg- edly made offensive remarks about the woman who had raised a grievance, but these were disregarded.
Shortly after the initial report was delivered, the female executive is believed to have appealed, amid allegations of a “cover up”.
Sources within Arcadia said she could not believe that her colleagues had said they had not witnessed the incidents.
But without access to the original notes of what was said during the meeting, it would have been very difficult for her to prove a cover-up.
It raises the prospect that without the support of her colleagues, she may have felt unable to continue fighting the case, particularly when the grievance procedure concluded that Sir Philip had shouted and sworn at her, prodded, poked and slapped her but dismissed the behaviour as lighthearted horseplay.
She is understood to have agreed to walk away with a settlement of more than a million pounds just months later.
Whilst Sir Philip might have thought that he had won that battle, the lawyer, Ms Cooper, who had conducted the grievance procedure, walked out around a month later.
Desmond Browne QC, acting for the The Telegraph in its injunction battle against the billionaire, told the High Court that a witness had come forward to allege Ms Cooper had “raised a grievance – not just about being bullied … but also about Sir Philip Green’s behaviour during the conduct of [a woman’s] grievance procedure”.
If the trial to determine whether the injunction against The Telegraph had gone ahead, the judge would have heard evidence about the internal investigation and its integrity would have been called into question.
After Sir Philip announced that he was going to drop the gagging order against The Telegraph, a court was told that the probe into the female executive’s complaint was a “pantomime” and that the lawyer who carried out the inquiry had also claimed that she was bullied by the businessman whilst carrying out the investigation.
Last night, MPs and campaigners said that “outside professionals” should be called in to carry out investigations.
Zelda Perkins, who broke her NDA with film producer Harvey Weinstein, said she had tried to “write in conditions that grievance procedures at the company was undertaken by outside professionals” when she was negotiating her settlement.
She said: “This is a perfect example of what my fears were then, and here we are 20 years later, nothing has changed. People are still in the thrall of bullies and the law is enabling it.”
Ms Perkins also said that senior executives and lawyers should be held to account.
“In terms of professional conduct there has to be a disincentive. The bully can’t be the only one who wins. This is the perfect example of why the whole process is wrong, and who are the losers? Still it is the victims. The losers are the victims who are still being threatened.”
Mr Justice Warby, who lifted the injunction against The Telegraph on Friday, said the Court of Appeal had taken “the view that, on the evidence before it, the NDAs had been entered into freely, with the benefit of legal advice, and that the claimants were likely to persuade the court at a trial that publication of the information in question should not be allowed”.
However, at the end of a grievance procedure that has been described as little more than a “pantomime”, it is possible that the woman who raised the grievance felt she had little option but to enter into the settlement.
‘This is the perfect example of what my fears were then, and here we are 20 years later, nothing has changed. People are still in the thrall of bullies and the law is enabling it’