Case 2417892/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Telford v Sellafield Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417892/2018
- Decision date
- 15 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Mr K Smith, Ms K Fulton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Telford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Telford worked for Sellafield for more than 20 years as a Senior Control Systems Engineer. The unfair dismissal claim arose from an April 2018 incident in which a black mesh bag containing USB sticks, including THORP PDC data, was found in the car park. After Operation Alduin, an HR investigation, a disciplinary hearing before Graham Norman on 19 July 2018, and two appeals, the tribunal found Sellafield had a potentially fair reason of conduct and a reasonable belief, based on a detailed investigation, that she had stored official sensitive information on an unencrypted personal USB stick.
On fairness, the tribunal accepted that the information was categorised as official sensitive, that Sellafield’s work made data security especially important, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It rejected the argument that the sanction was inconsistent with comparator cases, finding the cases relied on by Miss Telford less serious. The tribunal also said that, if dismissal had been unfair, it would have considered Polkey reduction and substantial contributory fault.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that Miss Telford was disabled from March 2017 by asthma, chronic pain, endometriosis and IBS. It held that many of the historical allegations from 2009 to 2018 were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, or lacked the necessary particulars such as a PCP or protected act. Of the three in-time allegations linked to dismissal, it found no proved request to postpone the disciplinary hearing, Mr Norman was an appropriate hearing officer, and there was no evidence that Mr Cartmell briefed staff about her in the way alleged.
Overall, the tribunal found no direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, or victimisation, and dismissed the disability complaint. The unpaid holiday pay complaint was withdrawn by the claimant on 6 September 2022 and dismissed as a result. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal fair and within the range of reasonable responses after a detailed investigation into the USB/data security incident. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal accepted disability from March 2017 for asthma, chronic pain, endometriosis and IBS, but dismissed the complaint: many historical allegations were out of time or inadequately pleaded, and the three in-time dismissal-linked allegations were not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay complaint was withdrawn by the claimant on 6 September 2022 and dismissed as a consequence. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Polkey principle
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(5) and Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Hadjioannu v Coral Casinos Ltd
- Lyfar v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Greco v General Physics
- Wilko Retail Ltd v Gaskell
- Adadeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.