In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal dismissed all of Mrs Marie-Antionette St Joseph's claims against Citywest Homes Services Ltd. It found that her reliance on a previous Westway Housing Association tribunal claim did not establish a qualifying protected disclosure for Part IVA ERA purposes, because the disclosure was made to a former employer and to the tribunal rather than in a way covered by sections 43C to 43H, and because the claimant had presented that earlier claim for personal gain. The tribunal also found that the respondent's managers were not aware of the WHA claim during her employment, which independently defeated the whistleblowing detriment and dismissal allegations.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal accepted that Mr Allard made the 15 March 2018 remark about the team wanting a 'young strapping male', but found it was a joke and did not amount to age discrimination. It treated the same incident as the only age-related harassment allegation, but held that the conduct did not meet section 26 Equality Act 2010. The marital-status discrimination claim also failed: the tribunal rejected the suggestion that Ms Waine, Ms Nwosu and Ms Odiadi resented the claimant because she was married, and found that the incidents relied upon were either ordinary work interactions, unsupported allegations, or events with no discriminatory link.

The tribunal further rejected victimisation. It found that the claimant's 19 July 2018 complaint and 31 July 2018 grievance did not complain of Equality Act breaches, discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and so were not protected acts on the facts found. It held that the later steps in the dismissal process were taken because the claimant stopped attending work from 24 September 2018 and refused to return, not because of any protected act or protected disclosure. The tribunal found the workplace was not unsafe for her and that the respondent had offered an alternative office, which she did not accept.

The money claims also failed. The tribunal found the claimant was paid through 30 September 2018 despite not working from 24 September 2018, so there was no unlawful deduction from wages. It found that, under both the contractual holiday formula and the Working Time Regulations 1998, she had no untaken holiday entitlement left to be paid on termination. Her breach of contract claim failed because the contract permitted summary dismissal without notice for gross misconduct, and the tribunal held that her unauthorised absence justified that treatment. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.