in person For the v Mrs S Beattie, Consultant — 2021

The tribunal heard a victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 and a constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. It first dealt with a limitation issue and extended time on a just and equitable basis. The claim then proceeded to findings on whether the respondent's actions after the claimant supported Caroline Herbert's grievance, and after the claimant's own grievance of 3 August 2018, amounted to detriments or a fundamental breach of contract.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts, but it found that the 25 July 2018 investigation meeting was called for genuine management reasons. The claimant had not followed the instruction to keep JS case files together and mark them 1 of 2 and 2 of 2, which caused difficulty when urgent disclosure work had to be completed. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's account of the telephone call on 19 July 2018, including that the claimant was asked where the disclosure file was and responded abruptly. It held that the meeting was justified, was not a disciplinary hearing, and was not motivated by the claimant's support for CH's grievance.

The tribunal also rejected the complaint that Mr Okali's handling of the 3 August 2018 grievance was a detriment. It found that he responded on the day of receipt, offered to meet the claimant the following week, and then met her promptly on his return from leave. The later delay in issuing the grievance outcome was explained by the scale of the issues, his reduced working week, and the respondent's restructuring work. The tribunal accepted those explanations and found no detriment within section 27, applying the burden of proof principles in section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Madarassy v Nomura and Shamoon.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and no breach of contract. It held that the claimant had made assumptions about the respondent's intentions, but the evidence showed a genuine management reason for the investigation and no link between that meeting and the redundancy/restructure process. The tribunal noted that the claimant said she had wanted to leave for a long time, had already applied elsewhere, and resigned on 19 August 2018 before the grievance process had been completed. The claims were dismissed.