Miss C Beales v Gi Group Recruitment Ltd — 2023

Miss C Beales worked for GI Recruitment Limited as a flexible employee assigned to Birds Eye from October 2020. She complained on 4 August 2021 that her supervisor had sexually harassed her, but the tribunal found her evidence unreliable on key points. CCTV showed the alleged touching was only the supervisor placing his hand in the centre of her back while speaking to her in a noisy area, and the tribunal found the alleged 'you would lose your job' remark was not made. The respondent began investigating promptly, interviewed witnesses, offered a move to another line, and the claimant later withdrew her grievance on 13 September 2021.

The tribunal held the complaint was not a protected disclosure because it related to the claimant's own situation rather than the public interest. Her evidence that other women were affected was rejected, and the tribunal found her allegations about wider impact were untrue. Even if protected disclosure had been made, the alleged detriments failed because the respondent's investigation was underway and the later removal from shifts followed a separate misconduct investigation. On 20 August 2021 the claimant left the Birds Eye site without clocking out, contrary to the induction and disciplinary rules. At the disciplinary hearing on 28 September 2021 she accepted that she had forgotten to clock out and understood the health and safety risk, and Employment Judge Butler found that this amounted to gross misconduct; dismissal on 29 September 2021 was therefore for misconduct, not whistleblowing.

The sexual harassment and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal held that the challenged conduct either was not proved or was not related to sex, and it found no failure to deal with the grievance because the grievance was withdrawn before an outcome was required. The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found the underlying allegations were false or made in bad faith, so there was no protected act, and the later treatment was linked to the misconduct investigation. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant was in repudiatory breach by leaving the site and failing to clock out in breach of health and safety rules, so no notice pay was due. The holiday pay claim failed because the claimant could not explain the basis of the claim and the respondent produced payslips showing any outstanding holiday pay had been paid. The disability discrimination claim was withdrawn after the claimant conceded she was not disabled, and no award was made.