THE Fire Brigades Union has been cleared of unlawful discrimination in a case in which a male fire fighter was accused of sexually harassing a female colleague, writes Bruce McKain, Law Correspondent.

The union has adopted a policy of sending out ''the right message'' by siding with those who claim sexual harassment - almost inevitably women - rather than the person accused.

Three Court of Session judges have decided that whether or not that is fair, there was no evidence that Mr George Fraser was treated unfairly just because he is a man.

Mr Fraser, 58, of Duns, Berwickshire, was a sub-officer with Lothian and Borders Fire Brigade and a member of the Fire Brigades Union when colleague Mrs Sharon Mackenzie, 24, made claims of sexual harassment against him.

He was suspended from duty in September 1994 and the union decided to support Mrs Mackenzie rather than him. The union refused his request for representation at a subsequent disciplinary hearing and also refused to reimburse his legal fees.

Seven of the nine charges against him were dismissed and his employers decided to take no further action on the other two.

An industrial tribunal decided unanimously that the Fire Brigades Union had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Fraser in terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and awarded him #7000.

This was upheld by a majority decision of the employment appeal tribunal, and the union appealed to the Court of Session.

Lord Sutherland, who heard the appeal with Lord Dawson and Lady Cosgrove, said Mr Fraser had not been represented in the Court of Session. The union had made an ex-gratia payment to Mr Fraser and he had decided to take no further part in the proceedings.

However, the union was anxious to have it established that it was not guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Lord Sutherland said Mr Fraser's case was that the union had discriminated against him in refusing to support his case because he was a man.

''It appears also to be clear . . . that (the union) were anxious to send what they called 'the right message' in cases of sexual harassment and for that reason were anxious to support claims by victims of harassment.

''The question that must be asked is whether there was material from which the tribunal could draw the inference that the decision to withdraw representation from Mr Fraser was taken because he was male rather than female and not because he was the accused rather than the complainer,'' he said.

The court had been unable to find in the industrial tribunal's reasoning any evidence to support such a view, he added.

While in no way approving the way in which the union had acted, the court was satisfied that a case had not been made out under the Sex Discrimination Act.