In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal because of protected disclosures, detriment for making protected disclosures, and direct sex and sexual orientation discrimination. The claim was presented on 18 November 2019. The tribunal held that the dismissal claims were two days out of time after ACAS early conciliation, the detriment complaint was about nine months out of time, and the sex and sexual orientation discrimination complaints were about ten months and five months out of time respectively.

On the time-limit issues, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the dismissal and whistleblowing claims in time, so those claims were struck out. It rejected the claimant's reliance on depression and anxiety, noting that he had trade union advice, legal advice, and had been able to take part in the appeal and ACAS processes while also working in a part-time job. For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis, taking into account the length of the delay and the prejudice to the respondent caused by the passage of time, including disposal of recruitment papers and fading recollection.

If the dismissal claims had been in time, the tribunal found they would have failed on the merits. It accepted the respondent's case that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not protected disclosures. Mr Houghton did not know of the alleged disclosures when he dismissed the claimant, and the dismissal was based on three misconduct matters: the January 2018 Partner Voice meeting where the claimant described the food as "dried up slop", the March 2018 investigation meeting with Ms Mancey and Mr Meenan, and the April 2019 Google+ post. The tribunal found that the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal were fair, and that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The protected disclosure detriment complaint failed in any event because the tribunal did not accept that Mr Aftab made the alleged threat not to give the claimant a pay rise, and because the alleged comment predated disclosure 5A. On the disclosure issues, the tribunal accepted that disclosure 5A was a protected disclosure, but held that disclosure 5B was only a series of suggestions, disclosure 5C was a pitch for the London living wage and no December 2018 equal pay disclosure was proved, and disclosure 5D consisted of an email to self and comments about internal democracy that did not disclose a legal obligation.

The sex and sexual orientation discrimination complaints also failed on the merits. The tribunal found that Ms Wise screened CVs for the home design stylist role without knowing the candidates' names, sex or sexual orientation, and that the claimant was not shortlisted because his CV did not show the essential design-related qualification or relevant experience. It also found that Mr Evans' grievance decision was based on a fair investigation and non-discriminatory reasons. All complaints were therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction.