Ms C v R Ltd — 2023

Ms C worked for R Ltd as a Nursery Nurse from 9 January 2017 and was summarily dismissed with effect from 6 November 2020 following a disciplinary process concerning an alleged breach of confidentiality connected with her attendance as companion at Miss D's disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found that the dismissal was for misconduct, not because of events at the Christmas party on 30 November 2019 or because Ms C had reported Mr G's conduct to Miss I or to Mr G.

On the sexual harassment claim, the tribunal found that at the work Christmas party Mr G, while drunk, tried to dance with Ms C, touched her rear, and made comments about her attractiveness. That conduct was unwanted, was of a sexual nature, and had the effect of violating Ms C's dignity. The tribunal did not accept that he tried to kiss her, and it found the later arm-grab outside the venue was not conduct of a sexual nature. However, the tribunal held that the sexual harassment claim was brought nearly nine months after the primary time limit expired and refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, noting the delay was very considerable, inadequately explained, and prejudicial to the Respondent.

The victimisation claim failed on the facts. The tribunal found that the decision to furlough Ms C was made for business reasons, that Miss Z was not pressured into making a false allegation, and that the dismissal resulted from Ms C's own conduct, not from any protected act or any belief that she had or might do a protected act. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, finding that Mr H had a genuine and reasonable belief that Ms C had committed misconduct, that the investigation was reasonable, that the procedure was fair overall, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The appeal was heard by Ms W and the dismissal was upheld.