In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant worked as an associate at TJX UK’s Charing Cross store from 20 October 2019 until she was summarily dismissed on 8 October 2020 for unauthorised absence. The tribunal found that the central incident on 15 February 2020 was not as the claimant described: Ms SW did not spray her with cleaning product or assault her, the CCTV did not support her account, associates did not have access to cleaning products, and the managers responded by speaking to both employees and moving Ms SW to another floor. The tribunal also accepted evidence that the claimant often raised personal and religious topics at work and that the managers’ handling of the incident was even-handed.

The claims of direct race discrimination, direct religion or belief discrimination, and harassment related to religion or belief were held to be out of time. The tribunal declined to extend time because the claimant gave no reason justifying an extension, and it held there was no continuing act linking the earlier allegations to any in-time complaint. It added that, if it had had jurisdiction, those claims would have failed because the factual allegations were not proved and there was no evidence that the relevant treatment was because of race or religion.

On automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(d) and (e) ERA 1996, the tribunal found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger when she stayed away from work. It rejected reliance on caring responsibilities for her mother, on her own health, and on the 15 February 2020 incident, and found the real reason she did not return after furlough was that she wanted to remain on the furlough scheme because it was financially preferable to sick leave. The dismissal was found to be for unauthorised absence and not because she was leaving work or refusing to return in response to danger.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted disability only in respect of dyspraxia, dyslexia, dyscalculia, hypermobility syndrome, fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, but not PTSD or depression/anxiety at the material time. It found that the decision-makers did not know of the proven disabilities and that the unauthorised absence did not arise in consequence of disability. On victimisation, the 16 October 2020 appeal letter was a protected act, but the alleged detriments were not made out and were not shown to be because of that protected act; the 23 September 2020 grievance appeal letter was not treated as a protected act. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was assessed because the hearing was liability-only.