Miss AB v GH Ltd Heard at Leeds by CVP — 2024

Miss AB brought complaints arising from an incident after the respondent's Christmas party on 16 December 2021 and from later workplace contact with YZ. The Tribunal found that both were drunk, that the claimant's evidence was not always reliable when measured against contemporaneous documents, and that the December 2021 incident did not prove unwanted conduct. On the Tribunal's findings, YZ helped the claimant to her room, their contact progressed at the claimant's instigation, and the claimant had not proved that what took place was unwanted by her.

The free-standing harassment and victimisation complaints were held to be out of time. The Tribunal found there was no conduct extending over a period for limitation purposes because some alleged acts were not proved and others were not discriminatory. It refused to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010, taking into account the length of the delay, the claimant's awareness of tribunal time limits by October 2022, the fact that she had already made police reports, pursued a grievance and appeal, and the prejudice caused by the passage of time to YZ and the respondent.

For the later events, the Tribunal found that the 10 February 2022 meeting with Ms LR and YZ was something the claimant had agreed to, that the flint scatter search on 14 February 2022 was carried out with the claimant working in the cabin rather than in the field, that she was placed in the same field as YZ for one week but was kept separate from him by Mr BT, and that the accommodation and van arrangements involved separation where practicable rather than deliberate proximity. It also found that the July 2022 training week was planned with separate small groups and controlled large sessions, and that the claimant did not raise concerns at the time.

In October and November 2022, the Tribunal found that the Staffordshire project arrangements were clumsy but did not require the claimant to work with YZ or transport him, that YZ's presence in the building before the grievance outcome was an oversight rather than deliberate contact, and that Mr WT's offer of professional mediation was not harassment. The victimisation allegation failed because the respondent investigated complaints about the claimant after receiving complaints from other staff, not because she had done a protected act.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the Tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It held that, even if the December 2021 incident had been capable of amounting to a breach, the claimant had affirmed the contract by continuing to work, taking a promotion, and pursuing internal processes. The later incidents, taken individually or cumulatively, did not meet the threshold for constructive dismissal. No monetary award was made.