Ms H Jones v Atal y Fro — 2021

The claimant was appointed Chief Executive Officer in January 2018. A preliminary hearing had already dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because she lacked continuous service. In this reserved judgment, the tribunal dealt with the remaining claims of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, victimisation, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. It found that the disciplinary policy in force at the time of dismissal was the version amended by the Board on 31 October 2018, which reserved the right to use a truncated procedure during the first 24 months of employment.

On the direct discrimination allegations, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because of sex or sexual orientation. It accepted that the trustees who decided to dismiss her at the emergency board meeting on 31 July 2019, led in the discussion by Ms Griffiths, Ms Wray and Ms Williams, did so because of serious safeguarding concerns, the state of the Respondent's safeguarding training and procedures, and a breakdown of trust and confidence in the claimant as CEO. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the decision was influenced by sex or sexual orientation, and it found the comparators relied on were materially different from the claimant's position.

On harassment, the tribunal accepted that Ms Capstick and the claimant exchanged many messages, some of which became unwanted to the claimant by the later stages of the relationship. However, it found that the messages were generally friendly or work-related, that they did not contain offensive, intimidating or suggestive content, and that they were not sent with the purpose of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. Applying the statutory harassment test and the authorities on dignity and effect, the tribunal concluded that it was unreasonable to characterise the conduct as harassment on the facts found.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found no protected act that influenced the dismissal decision. The formal grievance was submitted only after the dismissal decision had been made, and the tribunal found that the trustees who took the decision were not aware that the claimant intended to pursue a grievance. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that dismissal was caused by information supplied by Ms Capstick. The wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims were dismissed because the tribunal found the relevant disciplinary policy did not require the process contended for, the claimant had not been dismissed for misconduct, and one week's salary had been paid at the end of the contract. No monetary award was made.