Claimant v Hennik Group Ltd and Mrs V Hussey — 2019

The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against Hennik Group Ltd. It found that the respondent dismissed the claimant on 31 March 2020 after concerns that she had not reported the Harford Control and Access emails, but accepted her evidence that she had genuinely missed the emails during an exceptional week of lockdown and redundancy consultation. The tribunal found she would have processed the invoices later that day, that she had no financial motive because she had already decided to take redundancy, and that the respondent’s belief in dishonesty was not reasonably founded. It held that the investigation was inadequate, the disciplinary allegations were expanded beyond the invitation letter, the same person acted as investigator and decision-maker, and the appeal did not cure the flaws because material evidence from senior staff was not shared with the claimant. The tribunal also found she had not committed gross misconduct and was entitled to five weeks' notice.

The direct discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not paid less than others in the same or comparable roles because the higher salaries reflected different roles and seniority, not age, sex or race. It also found no less favourable treatment in relation to the disciplinary process or dismissal, and held that the age justification issue did not arise on the facts it found. The 29 July 2019 Bosch email was found to be related to race because the respondent had passed the lead to the claimant because of shared heritage, but it was a positive act and not less favourable treatment. The 31 March 2020 email to staff explaining the dismissal was accepted as being sent to explain the respondent’s position and not because of the claimant’s age, sex or race.

The harassment and victimisation claims, brought in relation to race, also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had raised complaints about pay, but not as complaints of discrimination, so there was no protected act for victimisation and no basis for the respondent to know or believe that she had done one. On harassment, it found that only the 29 July 2019 email could potentially amount to race-related harassment, but it was not unwanted at the time. The other alleged conduct, including pay, disciplinary action, dismissal and the 31 March 2020 email, was not found to be race-related.

The unpaid redundancy pay claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the dismissal was not a redundancy dismissal. Liability only was determined, and remedy, including any monetary award, was left for a later hearing. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s missed emails were human error rather than culpable conduct and that any future loss would depend on what would have happened had she not been dismissed.