Miss T Allen v AV Accessories Limited; and 1 other — 2023

The tribunal found that Miss Allen had OCD and anxiety within section 6 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the conditions affected washing and dressing, food preparation, social interaction, leaving the house and work, and concentration, and that the effect was long-term. It also found that the respondents did not know she had OCD at any point during employment, and only had actual knowledge of her anxiety from 20 August 2021 when she emailed saying she had suffered with anxiety for a long time and had been on medication.

On the disability-related harassment claim, most allegations failed because they were not related to disability. The tribunal found the June 2021 text sent to the claimant by mistake, the 13 August 2021 postal surcharge incident, the 16 and 20 August 2021 vaccine, apprentice and P45 messages, and the home-working complaint were poor management or were not connected to disability. It did find that the 29 October 2021 email, which referred to the claimant being off work for almost two months and the respondent taking legal advice, would have amounted to disability-related harassment once the respondents knew of her anxiety, but the complaint was out of time and the tribunal refused to extend time.

The victimisation claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant did a protected act in her January 2022 grievance when she said she had been discriminated against, but it found that the handling of the grievances and the later treatment were driven by incompetence, inexperience and poor management rather than because of the protected act. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal succeeded: the tribunal found that the cumulative conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence, that the grievance handling was the final straw, and that the claimant resigned in response to those breaches and not for some other reason.

The apprenticeship pay claim failed. The tribunal held that the claimant was employed under a common law contract of apprenticeship, that she was paid the agreed apprentice rates, and that there was no breach of contract. The separate complaint for unlawful deduction from wages was out of time. The First Respondent admitted failing to provide a section 1 statement, and the parties agreed a combined sum of £4,993.29 for the unfair dismissal and section 1 matters.