Mr Michal Swaciak v Rowse Honey Limited — 2023

The claimant, Mr Michal Swaciak, brought a claim of direct sex discrimination arising from the respondent's handling of competing complaints between him and Agata Kulaga in May and July 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent acknowledged and investigated Ms Kulaga's grievance immediately, but did not acknowledge the claimant's written complaint as a formal grievance. It rejected the respondent's evidence that the claimant only wanted a file note, finding instead that he had written to HR because he wanted the complaint taken seriously. The tribunal accepted that Ms Kulaga had said she would take revenge in the claimant's private life and treated that as a threat outside the workplace.

The tribunal found that Nicola Wilkinson interviewed the claimant and some other employees on 27 and 29 May 2020, but that the claimant was not told he was part of a grievance investigation into Ms Kulaga's allegations. It held that the respondent treated the claimant's complaint less favourably than Ms Kulaga's grievance and that the claimant was suspended on 12 June 2020 after Ms Kulaga made a second complaint, while Ms Kulaga remained at work and was later stepped up to act as team leader on the claimant's line during his suspension. The allegation that the respondent did not interview witnesses identified in the claimant's complaint was not well-founded, and the separate allegation that he was suspended again on 8 August 2020 was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The tribunal further found that the disciplinary process ended with a final written warning, but the letter of 30 July 2020 did not explain why that sanction had been chosen. It also found that the respondent refused to extend time for the claimant's appeal and then monitored him for six weeks after his return to work. Applying the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010, and relying on the approach in Shamoon, Igen v Wong, Madarassy v Nomura, Mitchell and Nagarajan, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had not shown that its treatment of the claimant was free from sex discrimination. It held that the claimant's sex significantly influenced the decision-making and that the direct sex discrimination claim was well-founded apart from the witness-interview allegation.

For remedy, the tribunal awarded £9,000 for injury to feelings only. It applied the post-6 April 2020 Vento bands, treated the case as more than a single isolated incident, and placed the award at £9,000, with no separate basic award, compensatory award, or interest award.