Miss D Olesinska v TechnipFMC Umbilicals Limited and 1 other — 2022

Miss D Olesinska worked for TechnipFMC Umbilicals Limited through CDM Recruitment Limited and was later appointed as a Quality Controller. The tribunal recorded that complaints against the second respondent were withdrawn, and that later complaints about a bonus payment against the first respondent were also withdrawn and dismissed under rule 52. The remaining case concerned direct sex, race and disability discrimination and harassment claims against TechnipFMC.

On the training and support complaints, the tribunal found that Technip did not have a formal induction or training programme for QCs and that QCs generally learned the role by working alongside others and gaining experience on the job. It accepted that the claimant had some shadowing opportunities before starting the QC role and that management responded when she raised concerns, including by asking her co-worker to support her and by offering further help. The tribunal rejected the allegations that Mr Dodds and Mr McKenry treated her badly because of sex or Polish nationality, finding that Mr Dodds limited contact after an overtime dispute and that Mr McKenry's comment that she was taking the piss was made because he thought she was not pulling her weight.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Swailes mocked or mimicked the claimant's accent on three occasions in 2019 and early 2020, based mainly on Mr Adamson's evidence. It nevertheless dismissed that harassment complaint because it was brought out of time: the last incident was no later than April 2020, ACAS early conciliation was not started until October 2020, and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. It also rejected the complaint arising from the end of the claimant's assignment on 23 June 2020, finding that Ms Young genuinely believed, from what Mr Jefferson told her, that the claimant did not want to return to Technip and that the decision would have been taken in the same way for a hypothetical male or British agency worker.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant's low mood, anxiety and sleep problems in 2020 were a reaction to adverse circumstances at work rather than a mental impairment amounting to a disability at the relevant time. It also found that Ms Young did not believe the claimant had any mental health impairment and did not perceive her as having a disability or a progressive condition. The locker-break-in complaint also failed: the tribunal found that a locker had been broken into, but was not persuaded that the break-in was by a Technip employee or that there was any basis to infer sex or race discrimination. The complaint that the respondent failed to address her concerns was rejected because the tribunal found the relevant matters had either been addressed or were not pursued further by the claimant.