Case 2504239/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Ord v BEL Valves Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2504239/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs S Don, Mr D Cattell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Ord
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs B Ord worked for BEL Valves Limited from 1 June 2015 and was a Continuous Improvement and Health, Safety and Environmental Manager by 2017. The tribunal accepted her evidence, and that of Ms SJ McLaughlan, that Mr Clive Lincoln behaved towards her in the way she described and that his conduct amounted to bullying. After the claimant raised a formal grievance on 9 November 2018, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to carry out any meaningful or reasonable investigation: Mr Lincoln was not interviewed, the listed witnesses were not interviewed, and the grievance was not fairly concluded even after Mr Lincoln left the business on 2 January 2019.
The tribunal found that the claimant developed work-related stress, anxiety and depression, with medical and occupational health evidence showing continuing symptoms. It accepted that by September 2019 she had a mental impairment with a substantial adverse effect and that it could well last longer than 12 months, so she was disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that position by then. However, on the section 15 claim the tribunal held that, although being placed in a pool of one for redundancy was unfavourable treatment and the absences were a consequence of the disability, the decision to include her in the pool was part of a wider redundancy exercise caused by business need and was not shown to have been because of those absences.
The claimant succeeded in unfair constructive dismissal and breach of contract. The tribunal held that the cumulative failures in dealing with her grievance and the way the matter was handled on her return to work amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that she resigned in response without affirming the contract. The later redundancy notification did not itself amount to a further fundamental breach, although it contributed to her decision to resign. The remedy awarded was a basic award of £3,150, compensation for loss of statutory rights of £500, and loss of earnings of £19,296.63, which included notice pay of £9,292.97, making a total award of £22,946.63.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found a cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the claimant resigned in response on 27 September 2019. | Upheld | — | £22,947 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay. The judgment does not assign a separate standalone figure for this claim; notice pay was included within the unfair dismissal loss-of-earnings calculation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by September 2019 and that her absences arose from that disability, but found the redundancy-pool decision was not because of those absences. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,947
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,150
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,797
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp
- Woods v WM Car Sales Peterborough Limited
- Lewis v Motorworld Garage Limited
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Malik v BCCI
- Blackburn v Aldi Stores Ltd
- GAB ROBINS (UK) LTD v Triggs
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.139 ERA 1996
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.