FCA Handbook - COCON 4.3 Specific guidance on harassment

You are viewing COCON 4.3 Specific guidance on harassment as it appeared on 01/09/2026. The current version of COCON 4.3 Specific guidance on harassment was last updated on 01/09/2026 .

Guidance

Related resources

COCON 4.3 Specific guidance on harassment

Purpose

This section describes when behaviour that can broadly be described as bullying, harassment, being offensive or insulting or causing distress and similar behaviour in relation to a work colleague is a breach of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (COCON 2.1.1R) or Individual Conduct Rule 2 (COCON 2.1.2R).

Although this section does not cover every kind of misconduct between members of the workforce of a firm that might be a breach of Individual Conduct Rule 1 or Individual Conduct Rule 2, it does describe when behaviour of the kind in COCON 4.3.1G will be a breach of those rules.

Summary

COCON 3.1 (General factors for assessing compliance) is the starting point for deciding whether there has been a breach of COCON. Subject to that, behaviour of the kind in COCON 4.3.1G is a breach of Individual Conduct Rule 1 or Individual Conduct Rule 2 if:

(1) the conduct is of the type described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4); and
(2) the conduct in question involves:
1. (a) a lack of integrity (in the case of Individual Conduct Rule 1); or
2. (b) a failure to act with due skill, care and diligence (in the case of Individual Conduct Rule 2).

The flow diagrams in COCON 4 Annex 1 (How COCON applies to harassment) explain COCON 4.3.3G in more detail and show how to decide whether conduct within COCON 4.3.1G is a breach of COCON.

Application to banks

(1) This section applies to an SMCR banking firm as well as to other kinds of SMCR firm.
(2) This section cross refers to COCON 1.1.7FR (To what conduct does it apply? (Other limitations: Non-banks: Harassment)) even though that rule does not apply to an SMCR banking firm.
(3) The reason that this section cross-refers to that rule in the case of SMCR banking firms as well as other kinds of SMCR firm is that behaviour of the kind in COCON 4.3.1G is only capable of coming within COCON if it is of a kind described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4). This is the case for both an SMCR banking firm and for any other kind of SMCR firm.
(4) Therefore this section applies COCON 1.1.7FR(4) to an SMCR banking firm as guidance for the purpose of this section.
(5) The rest of COCON 1.1.7FR is not relevant to an SMCR banking firm.

Harassment

The factors to take into account in deciding whether conduct comes within COCON 1.1.7FR(4) include:

(1) whether it is serious (see COCON 4.3.7G to COCON 4.3.11G);
(2) its effect (see COCON 4.3.12G to COCON 4.3.14G);
(3) its purpose (see COCON 4.3.15G); and
(4) the factors in COCON 4.3.16G to COCON 4.3.18G.

Seriousness

COCON 1.1.7FR(4) only covers conduct that is serious.

The factors that the FCA will take into account when deciding whether misconduct in relation to a fellow member of the workforce is serious enough to amount to a breach of COCON include:

(1) whether the conduct is repeated or part of a pattern;
(2) the duration of the conduct;
(3) the size of the impact on the subject of the conduct (the rule applies to effects which are serious and marked, and not to those which are, though real, of lesser consequence);
(4) the seniority of the person whose conduct is in question;
(5) the difference in seniority between the person whose conduct is in question and the subject of the conduct and whether the person whose conduct is in question has control or influence over the other’s career;
(6) mitigating and aggravating factors even if they take place subsequently (the factors in FIT 1.3.10G(3) to (7) (Breaches of requirements of the regulatory system) are relevant here also);
(7) whether the person whose conduct is in question has been warned or disciplined for similar conduct by the firm, a previous employer, the police or a regulator;
(8) whether the person whose conduct is in question has previously undertaken not to do the act or engage in the behaviour in question; and
(9) whether the conduct is criminal (particularly if it is of the kind described in FIT 1.3.22G (Offences)) or would justify dismissal.

Although matters occurring after the conduct in question are generally relevant to mitigation or aggravation rather than to whether conduct is a breach of a rule in the first place, COCON 4.3.8G(6) includes such matters because one of the elements in judging whether conduct is serious enough to be a breach of COCON is whether the conduct is repeated or part of a pattern.

Whether or not misconduct has been the subject of a formal complaint is not generally relevant to the seriousness of that conduct. The fact that it has been the subject of such a complaint may be relevant evidence, for instance in helping to show what the effect of the conduct was.

As respects COCON 4.3.8G(8):

(1) The mere fact that the person whose conduct is in question has, in accordance with the firm's general policy, undertaken to comply with the firm's staff handbook or other internal policies for staff and the conduct in question breaches a requirement of such policies is unlikely to be of great significance.
(2) The fact that, before the misconduct in question, the firm has warned the individual in question about conduct of that type or has required the individual to undertake not to repeat conduct of that type is likely to be significant.

Effect of the conduct

In deciding whether conduct has the effect in COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a), it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances of the case. COCON 4.3.13G and COCON 4.3.14G cover 2 factors that are always relevant.

One of those factors is the perception of the subject of the misconduct. The result of this subjective question is that if the subject of the conduct does not perceive their dignity to have been violated, or any of the other things referred to in COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a) to have occurred, then the conduct should not be found to have had that effect.

The second of the factors referred to in COCON 4.3.12G is whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have had the effect in COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a). The result of this objective question is that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the dignity of the subject of the conduct or creating any of the other effects in COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a), then it should not be found to have done so.

Purpose of the conduct

The purpose of conduct as well as its effect is relevant to whether it is of the type described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a). COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a) covers conduct whose purpose is to violate dignity or to cause any of the other effects described in that rule even if the conduct does not actually have that effect. For example, a person may breach COCON if they send a hostile and intimidatory communication that is intercepted by the employing firm before it is received by the person to whom it is sent.

Subject of the misconduct

(1) If behaviour has the effect described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a) on an individual listed in COCON 1.1.7FR(3), it can still be a breach of COCON if it is targeted at someone else or it is not targeted at anyone.
(2) Thus, a person’s conduct can breach COCON by reason of its effect on a witness to that conduct.
(3) References in this section to the subject of conduct or misconduct and similar phrases should be interpreted accordingly.

Single incident

Conduct can come within COCON 1.1.7FR(4) whether it consists of a single incident, several incidents or a course of conduct.

Physical acts

Conduct within COCON 1.1.7FR(4) covers a wide range of behaviour. It is not limited to words, communications and gestures. For example, it can also cover physical violence.

Individual Conduct Rule 1

(1) Conduct only breaches Individual Conduct Rule 1 if it involves a lack of integrity.
(2) A person does not show a lack of integrity merely because they act without due care. A lack of integrity involves an element of intention, recklessness or turning a blind eye (for example, being aware that something is likely but avoiding confirming it).

While this section does not set out a complete explanation of what integrity means, one consequence of COCON 4.3.19G is that misconduct in relation to a fellow member of the workforce falls outside the scope of rule 1 if the conduct rules staff member:

(1) thought that:
1. (a) there was an appropriate reason for the conduct; and
2. (b) the conduct and its intended effect were proportionate to the intended aim of the conduct; or
(2) did not intend to have an effect on the subject of the misconduct of the kind described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4), did not know that they were doing so and was not reckless about the effect of their conduct.

A belief of the kind referred to in COCON 4.3.20G(1) should be reasonable. An unreasonable belief that conduct is justified may itself show a lack of integrity. For example, the fact that the individual carrying out the conduct in question believes that sexual harassment is not blameworthy is not a reason for Individual Conduct Rule 1 not to apply.

Conduct excluded from rule 1 under COCON 4.3.19G may fall under rule 2 instead.

Individual Conduct Rule 2

(1) Conduct only breaches Individual Conduct Rule 2 if it involves a lack of due skill, care and diligence.
(2) For example, a conduct rules staff member carrying out conduct falling within COCON 1.1.7FR(4)(a) will not breach the rule if a reasonable person with the skills that the conduct rules staff member carrying out the conduct has and ought to have:
1. (a) would have thought that the conduct would not have the effects described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4) on the subject of the conduct; or
2. (b) would have thought that the conduct was justified.

Repeated conduct

(1) A conduct rules staff member may in principle rely on COCON 4.3.23G on more than one occasion.
(2) Nevertheless, repeated instances of the same misconduct could make it less likely that the conduct rules staff member did not know that it would have the effects described in COCON 1.1.7FR(4) (in the case of Individual Conduct Rule 1) or that it would be reasonable to believe that (Individual Conduct Rule 2).
(3) If they have been warned about the behaviour or someone has complained to them about it, it is less likely that they could reasonably think that it is justified.

Point In Time

01/09/2026