Mrs D. JEPSON v Ace Car Hire (worthing) Limited — 2019

The tribunal dismissed the direct sex discrimination and harassment claims. It found that, although the claimant identified a number of differences between her treatment and that of male colleagues, the evidence did not show that the treatment was because of her sex. In several instances the tribunal accepted alternative explanations advanced by the respondent or found that the factual allegation was not made out. It also accepted that some conduct was unwanted and created an unpleasant atmosphere, but held that it was not related to sex.

The tribunal upheld the victimisation claim based on the claimant's grievance of 26 February 2018, which the respondent conceded was a protected act. It found that after the grievance the claimant was ignored by Carl Woodcock and Eric Smith other than when they needed something from her, that she was denied access to the locked rear room containing business documents, and that there was an issue over her being denied requested holiday until Michael Woodcock intervened on 9 April 2018. The tribunal rejected the allegation that she was not allowed to answer company telephones or speak to customers or staff.

The tribunal also upheld the whistleblowing detriment claim. It accepted that the same grievance of 26 February 2018 was a protected disclosure and found that the claimant suffered detriments for that reason on the same factual bases as the successful victimisation allegations. The tribunal relied on the proximity to the grievance and the respondent's failure to provide a satisfactory alternative explanation for some of the treatment.

On dismissal, the tribunal accepted that a redundancy situation existed because the respondent reduced the number of office assistants from two to one, but found that redundancy was not the real reason for dismissal. It was concerned by the timing of the redundancy process after the grievance, the absence of evidence from Michael Woodcock, and the respondent's lack of convincing explanation for why redundancy was pursued at that point. It concluded that the grievance and the allegations of wrongdoing made within it were the reason, or at least the principal reason, for dismissal, so the claimant was unfairly dismissed because she had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal added that, even if it had needed to consider ordinary unfair dismissal separately, it would have found the dismissal unfair because the respondent had not proved redundancy as the reason.

The tribunal further found that the compensatory award for unfair dismissal should be limited because the employment would likely have ended three months after termination in any event. It found the relationship had irretrievably broken down and that the respondent would probably have discovered that the claimant had secretly taken 540 photographs of confidential documents and would then have dismissed her for misconduct, or that the relationship would otherwise not have continued.