Case 2600130/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. Nicola Mercer v Hand Held Products (UK) Ltd and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 2600130/2017
- Decision date
- 31 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mrs. L. Scott, Mr. K. Rose
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss. Nicola Mercer
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Hand Held Products (UK) Ltd as an Enterprise Account Manager from 15 June 2015 until she resigned with notice on 7 December 2016. The tribunal accepted that she genuinely believed she had been bullied and treated unfairly, but it found her evidence was often exaggerated and that Mr Burrell was generally a credible witness. It rejected the claimant's case that Mr Burrell disliked working with women or that the UK retail sales team had a sexist culture.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the disputed treatment arose from performance concerns, the distinction between enterprise and channel account management, and account-specific commercial judgments rather than sex. It accepted that some management could have been done better, but found no less favourable treatment because of sex in relation to induction, targets, account allocations, meetings, calls, SEA documentation, or the proposed PIP. Allegations concerning the conduct said to have occurred in December 2015 and January 2016 involving Mr Taylor were held out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The harassment claim failed on the merits for the complaints that were within time, and the time-barred harassment allegations were not entertained. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal found Mr Burrell did not know that the grievance lodged on 22 September 2016 contained discrimination allegations until 9 November 2016, after the decision had already been taken to move towards a PIP, and it did not accept that the alleged later acts were because of the protected act.
The constructive dismissal allegation failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's resignation was not caused by a repudiatory breach of contract and that the email of 24 November 2016 about the loss of the Next account was not a sufficient final straw. It concluded that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed and dismissed the claim in its entirety. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted she did not have the qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal did not entertain that complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | All direct sex discrimination allegations failed. The tribunal rejected the overarching case that Mr Burrell disliked working with women or that there was a sexist culture, and found that the complained-of treatment was driven by performance concerns, account management differences, timing, or business judgment. The allegations said to have occurred in December 2015 and January 2016 involving Mr Taylor were held out of time under s.123 EqA 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the December 2015 and January 2016 harassment allegations were out of time and not capable of extension, and the remaining harassment complaints failed on the merits because the conduct found by the tribunal was not unwanted conduct related to sex or did not have the required effect. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that the grievance raised on 22 September 2016 was a protected act, but found that Mr Burrell did not know until 9 November 2016 that the grievance included discrimination allegations. The alleged detriments were either not made out or were not because of the protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal allegation. It found no repudiatory breach or breakdown of trust and confidence, and held that the 24 November 2016 email about the loss of the Next account was not a final straw of more than trivial significance. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Wong v Igen Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomuna International Plc
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Nazir & Anor v Aslam
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc & Ors
- South London Healthcare NHS Trust v Al-Rubeyi
- Deer v Walford & Anor
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
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.