Miss F Grabe v Synod of German-speaking Lutheran, Reformed and United Congregations in Great Britain and 1 other — 2019

Miss Grabe was employed by the Synod as a Pastoral Assistant to Mr Köstlin-Büürma from 1 July to 31 October 2015. The tribunal found that the relationship began under an interim oral arrangement pending a written contract, that the parties had discussed a 50% role, and that the later difficulties arose after the Synod and regional representatives concluded in September 2015 that the 50% arrangement could not be sustained. It preferred the contemporaneous emails and found the evidence of Mr Köstlin-Büürma and Ms Cramer generally more reliable where there was conflict.

The wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims failed. The tribunal rejected the case that Miss Grabe had a fixed-term contract of three or six years or that the contract had crystallised in May 2015. It found that the draft contract of 13 August 2015 was never signed, that the employment was terminable on notice, and that the dismissal on 31 October 2015 came more than one month after notice was given. The tribunal also rejected the wider contract complaints, including the expense reimbursement point, for lack of proof.

The whistleblowing, victimisation and sex discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Miss Grabe raised concerns about the legality of proposed terms and about equal treatment, but held that those matters were not a material influence on the decision to end the 50% contract or on the later decision not to proceed with the proposed 25% contract. It found that the decisive factor was that the pastoral arrangement had become unsustainable after the September 2015 decisions, and that there was no background material on which to construct a sex discrimination case.

The disability discrimination claims also failed at an earlier stage because the respondents were found not to have actual or constructive knowledge of Miss Grabe's PTSD, fibromyalgia or any other relevant disability. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It also rejected the complaints about the tone of communications and the other alleged detriments as either not amounting to detriments or not being linked to any protected ground.

The equal pay claim failed because Mr Radacz was not an apt comparator for like work: he was full-time, fully ordained, carried out sacramental duties and was required to live in London, which also explained the relevant allowances. In any event, the respondents established a material factor defence under s.69 Equality Act 2010. The part-time worker claim failed for similar reasons, because the tribunal found that the pay difference and the complained-of treatment were not because Miss Grabe worked part-time. To the extent any complaints were brought outside the applicable primary time limits, the tribunal said they were out of time and there was no basis for extending time; in any event, all claims failed on the merits and no award was made.