Mrs S Duncan v London Borough of Ealing — 2020

Mrs S Duncan, a long-serving transport and travel officer at London Borough of Ealing, was managed by Mrs D Harrison from July 2019. The tribunal accepted that Mrs Harrison became concerned about the claimant's organisation, prioritisation, communication, record keeping and handling of referrals and risk assessments, and it accepted that there were contemporaneous complaints from schools and transport providers. It also accepted that the claimant found the performance management process stressful and that she was a hard-working employee with a long service record.

The tribunal found that the respondent followed its Managing Unsatisfactory Performance procedure from an informal meeting on 3 September 2020 through a letter on 16 September 2020, a Stage 1 meeting on 6 October 2020, a Stage 2 meeting on 26 January 2021 and an invitation to Stage 3 in April 2021 before the claimant went off sick on 19 April 2021. It rejected the claimant's case that the objectives were unreasonable or that supervision was excessive. The tribunal found the tasks were ordinary parts of the transport and travel officer role and that the increased supervision was significant but justified by the seriousness of the performance concerns and safeguarding implications.

On race discrimination, the tribunal did not accept that the respondent treated the claimant less favourably because she was African-Caribbean or that Mr French and Ms Jaszczolt were valid comparators, because there was no evidence they had similar performance issues. It found that the Stage 2 referral and Stage 3 invitation were based on genuine and substantial performance concerns. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant's DSAR was not answered within 30 days, but found that other employees' DSARs had also been delayed and accepted Mrs Quinn's explanation that the DSAR had been confused with settlement discussions.

On age discrimination, the claimant relied on Mrs Harrison's comment about a 'big birthday' and a retirement course email. The tribunal found the birthday remark was well-meant but clumsy and that the retirement course email had been sent to all staff, so neither point supported an inference of age discrimination. It concluded there were no facts from which it could reasonably infer that age played any part in the treatment complained of. The unfair dismissal and 'other payments' claims were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed, and all remaining claims were dismissed.