- IN PERSON INTERPRETER – MS A BRODERICK FOR THE v Respondent — 2021

Mr Kanczel worked for the respondent from 15 March 2015 and became Assistant Head Housekeeper on 7 September 2016. His wife had previously brought a pregnancy or maternity tribunal claim against the respondent, and the tribunal accepted that his passing on information about a comment said to have been made by Mr Eaves was a protected act for the purposes of s27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also held that, on the facts relied on by the claimant, the stage 1 burden under the Igen v Wong approach was engaged.

The tribunal then found that the respondent had shown a complete non-discriminatory explanation for the disciplinary process. It accepted that complaints by Nina Chila and another witness were genuine, serious, and had to be addressed, and that it was inevitable they were treated as disciplinary allegations. It also accepted Mr Eaves' evidence that 24 hours' notice was given on the basis of external HR advice, and that supplying the statements with the invitation letter was normal practice where the material already disclosed a disciplinary case to answer. On that basis, the tribunal held that the protected act played no part in the respondent's decisions and dismissed the victimisation claim. The separate allegation about the claimant's email account also failed because the tribunal found there was no personal data to protect on the work account and no evidence that Mr Richbell's failure to respond was connected to the earlier protected act.

For constructive dismissal, the tribunal considered the same pre-resignation matters as alleged breaches of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to commence disciplinary action, that the 24 hours' notice was given in accordance with HR advice, and that there was no breach in providing the allegations with the disciplinary invite. Although the judge observed that it would have been preferable to grant more time when the claimant asked for it, that was not enough to establish a breach. The tribunal therefore dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim.