In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Page was employed by the Public and Commercial Services Union as an Organiser from 5 March 2018. He relied on an admitted protected act on 20 March 2018, when he emailed Andrew Simpson about the respondent's equality policy, and on later equalities-related work and comments in May and June 2018. The tribunal accepted that some of the later matters could in principle amount to protected acts, but held that the conference-related incidents were out of time on the face of it and, if necessary, formed part of the same sequence leading to the later disciplinary process or were just and equitably extended.

On the substance, the tribunal found that Sian Manaz did not refuse to work with the claimant, blank him because of protected acts, or avoid meeting him. It held that the joiner-journey communications were a misunderstanding about what information was being requested, and that the 7 June 2018 exchange was a bad-tempered conversation with raised voices rather than a victimising detriment. Her report to management, and Dave Tilley's witness evidence about the incident, were found to be responses to that altercation rather than to any protected act.

The tribunal also rejected the complaints about Nick McCarthy and Jeff Evans. It found that the formal disciplinary process, the written warning issued on 25 October 2018, the appeal arrangements, the refusal to allow late evidence, and the later warning that further disciplinary action might follow were explained by the claimant's behaviour, his allegations against managers, and the respondent's disciplinary practice. Applying section 27 and section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, together with Nagarajan, Madarassy and Bailey, it held that no protected act was a significant influence on any proven detriment. Because the victimisation claim failed, the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed, since any repudiatory breach would have had to be an act of victimisation. No remedy was awarded.