Ms G Trif v NHS Hull Clinical Commissioning Group and 2 others — 2023

Ms Trif was employed by NHS Hull Clinical Commissioning Group from 22 February 2021 to 4 November 2021 as Equality and Diversity Manager. The tribunal heard her claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation and breach of contract arising out of events during her induction, probation, suspension, grievance and dismissal processes. It found that the working relationship broke down during probation after concerns arose about the claimant's handling of EQIAs, external meetings, the LMC racism report and confidentiality, but held that those concerns were genuine management issues rather than race-based treatment.

On the discrimination and harassment allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account of most of the incidents complained of, including the salary decision, the Dr title email, note-taking duties, the work-plan request, the autonomy discussion, the transgender-patient meeting, the meeting restrictions, the suspension, the probation failure and the appeal process. It found those matters were reasonable management decisions or did not occur as alleged. The tribunal accepted that the 21 January 2021 accent conversation and the 27 April 2021 vaccine discussion had a race-related context, but held that they were inoffensive small talk or a legitimate discussion and did not amount to less favourable treatment or harassment.

For victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the grievance submitted on 24 May 2021, the grievance appeal and the first Employment Tribunal claim were protected acts. It nevertheless found that the later decisions complained of were not because of those acts. In particular, the adjournment of the grievance appeal for further investigation, the refusal to uphold the grievance appeal, the invitation to the reconvened probation hearing, the dismissal and the dismissal appeal were found to be based on the evidence available, on concerns about the claimant's conduct and performance, or on decision-makers not knowing about the discrimination complaints. The one detriment the tribunal did accept, namely that Ms Stephenson looked at the grievance briefly, was found not to have been because of race or any protected act.

The breach of contract claim concerned four hours of alleged unsocial-hours work on 29 April and 6 May 2021. The tribunal found that the claimant had rearranged her day for childcare, had not been required to work those hours, and had no contractual entitlement to an additional payment. It also found the claim was out of time under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. All substantive claims were dismissed. Separately, the tribunal granted the respondents' costs application and ordered the claimant to pay £8,995, comprising £6,000 counsel fees and £2,995 solicitors' fees, after concluding that she acted unreasonably in continuing the case after the first week of evidence and after repeated costs warnings.