In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant started work on 20 November 2017 and later moved into promoted roles in February 2018 and again on 15 June 2018. The tribunal found that by December 2018 the respondent had become concerned about her attendance, and that those concerns were supported by the attendance record and the meeting and letter of 4 December 2018 warning that further issues could lead to disciplinary action or dismissal.

On 17 December 2018 the claimant emailed Mr Hevicon about unpaid commission and the absence of a new Appendix A after her role changes. Later that day she was dismissed in an impromptu meeting and told the reason was attendance. The tribunal accepted SJL's evidence that poor attendance was the real reason for dismissal, relied on the email exchange of 16 December 2018 showing that termination for attendance had already been considered, and rejected the claim that the dismissal was because the claimant had asserted statutory rights. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 therefore failed.

The race harassment claim under s.26 EQA 2010 concerned two alleged comments by AHJ. The tribunal preferred the evidence of AHJ and SJL, found that the alleged February/March 2017 'stupid jumper' comment was not made, and in any event was not accepted as related to race. It also rejected the allegation that in October 2018 AHJ said 'we are having a black and ginger' while showing a picture on his phone. Applying the section 26 test and the authorities it cited, including Pemberton v Inwood, Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal and Land Registry v Grant, the tribunal found the conduct alleged did not occur, and did not amount to harassment.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim concerned a £145 deduction for repair of the claimant's work mobile phone. The tribunal found the phone had been damaged, accepted the invoice evidence for the repair cost, and held that paragraph 26 of the signed contract permitted deduction of the cost of a mobile phone returned in a damaged condition due to the employee's actions. That claim also failed, and no monetary award was made.