Ms Lesley Ham v Citizens Advice Bureaux (Salford) HELD AT: Manchester — 2025

Ms Lesley Ham had worked for Citizens Advice Bureaux (Salford) since 2014 and became a permanent Advice Service Manager. The tribunal found there had been increasing relationship difficulties from 2017, and that the more serious disputes arose during the Covid period when the respondent was reorganising work, premises and duties in response to lockdown, funding constraints and recruitment difficulties. It accepted that the claimant's role changed over time, but found the respondent repeatedly told her that she remained an ASM and that no reduction in hours had been imposed.

The direct age discrimination and age harassment complaints failed. The tribunal found that the 'bus' comment about keeping records up to date, the remark 'I bet Lesley thinks we are all ageist', the employment-role discussions, the disabled employment queue, the MAS training issue and the later email exchanges were not treatment because of age. In the tribunal's view, where the events occurred at all, they were explained by the claimant's role, the need to manage casework and records, and broader operational issues rather than by her age. It also found that the alleged harassment did not meet the statutory test because the conduct was not related to age and, where relevant, would not reasonably have had the proscribed effect.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's grievance of 11 November 2021, which referred to ageism and younger staff, was a protected act, and that the issue was later developed in the ET claim presented on 28 April 2022. However, it found that the later matters the claimant relied on were not because she had done those protected acts. Instead, the respondent's actions were found to be responses to the claimant's repeated challenges to management, disputes about her role and duties, and the deterioration of trust on both sides.

On dismissal, the tribunal accepted the respondent's case that the reason was some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and considering the size and resources of the charity, it found the dismissal fair. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had tried over a long period to repair the relationship, had offered options including mediation, and had no realistic alternative role or location to offer. The holiday pay claim failed because the claimant had asked for pay in lieu of notice, and the written reasons claim failed because the dismissal letter of 22 November 2022 set out the reason for dismissal. All claims were dismissed.