In Person v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a residential care worker at Serene House, complained in May 2020 about the conduct of JB, a team leader who had been moved from another home after earlier concerns. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence on the material harassment allegations and found that JB brushed past and touched her on occasions, made sexualised comments about a photograph of her, asked about her marriage and husband, said she was a 'lucky girl getting to sleep with me', and made comments about women and body shape. It rejected some allegations, including the social media point, the 'handful' comment and the condoms allegation. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints were not properly investigated. Mr Probert did not investigate the touching allegation properly, and Mrs Duckett did not read the grievance or independently test JB's account before deciding not to take formal action. It also found that the respondent was slow to suspend JB and failed to organise matters so that the claimant did not see him when she returned to work. The tribunal concluded that these failures supported the harassment claim, but it rejected the refusal of paid time off because there was no contractual right to special leave in the circumstances.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. Although the tribunal said the cumulative effect of some failures could amount to a repudiatory breach, it found on the evidence that the claimant resigned on 1 October 2020 because she had obtained another team leader role elsewhere, not because of the alleged breach. The wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed. The direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not find that the claimant resigned or was dismissed because of sex, even though it had already found that some aspects of the investigation had been handled in a way that was sex-related.

The victimisation claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's 13 May 2020 complaint was a protected act, and it found that the refusal to provide a character reference in November 2020 was a detriment because of that protected act. The other alleged detriments, relating to wages and the alleged £235 debt, were rejected. Limitation points were extended on a just and equitable basis where needed. Liability only was decided at this hearing, and remedy was listed for a later hearing.