P Marsh Respondent Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, a health visitor with PTSD and a back condition, brought claims under s146 TULRCA, direct sex discrimination, sex harassment, direct disability discrimination, disability harassment, and discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal also refused an amendment to add a s44 ERA claim applying Selkent. The core dispute arose from the 2016 collective grievance about staffing and holiday cover in the Cheetham/Crumpsall team, and from the later breakdown in relationships and investigation in 2019.

On trade union detriment, the tribunal found that management repeatedly misunderstood the grievance as a complaint about term-time-only contracts, when it was really about lack of cover during predictable short-staffed periods. It upheld detriments including the 22 May 2018 show-of-hands incident aimed at union members, the December 2018 handling of the proposed nursery nurse move, the January 2019 meeting record, the 5 February 2019 'man up' incident, the post-meeting collection of complaints, and the 2019 investigation. Looking at those matters individually and overall, the tribunal held that the respondent's sole or main purpose was to prevent or deter trade union activity, and it found the claim was in time.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal upheld the claim on the 'Goodbye ladies' remark, the way the February 2019 grievances and investigation singled out the only male team member, the 'man up' comment, and later sexualised allegations and the 'pervert' report. It found less favourable treatment because of sex over a period of time, including during the investigation, where allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour were pursued without foundation. The sex harassment complaint failed because the tribunal did not consider the section 26 purpose/effect threshold was met on the evidence.

The disability discrimination claims failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled and noted that the lengthy process exacerbated his stress and anxiety, but it found no evidence that the treatment complained of was because of disability. For the section 15 claim, it held that the investigation and its outcome were not because of something arising in consequence of disability, but because of the trade union dispute and management's handling of the team.

No remedy was assessed in this judgment. The tribunal stated that a remedy hearing would be listed separately.