Ms M Rickaby v Gina Corciova and 1 other — 2022

Ms M Rickaby worked as a supervisor and cleaner at Wrotham Business Park from 1 May 2019. Her employment transferred to Kassadox Limited on 1 September 2019 under TUPE. The tribunal found that relations between the Claimant, her colleagues and Gina Corciova deteriorated during early September 2019 over cleaning arrangements, the use of mops and a caddy, adherence to instructions, and time recording. It found that the Claimant was summarily dismissed on 19 September 2019 after a meeting with Ms Corciova and Michelle Jackson.

On the direct discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted that Ms Corciova made a remark linking older people with reluctance to change, but it did not accept that she used the words 'white English'. It found that the allocation of work depended on whether staff were doing routine cleaning or deep cleaning, and that Romanian comparators doing the same type of work were allocated the same number of units. The claims of direct discrimination because of age and race therefore failed.

On harassment, the tribunal treated the accepted remark as a single transient comment relating to age. It found that, in context, it was not intended to offend and that it was not reasonable to regard it as creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The race-based harassment allegation also failed because the tribunal did not find that any race-related wording was proved.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the Claimant's question on 18 September 2019 about whether she was being treated badly because she was black was a protected act under section 27(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010. However, it found that Ms Corciova had already decided to dismiss the Claimant because the working relationship had broken down and because of the Claimant's conduct, including disputes about instructions, time recording and the caddy incident. The tribunal said that the protected act played no part in the dismissal and, if it were wrong, the Claimant would have been dismissed anyway for the same lawful reasons.

On the wages claim, the Second Respondent conceded that £1,037.93 was due as arrears of wages and accrued holiday pay, but it had not been paid by the hearing. The tribunal awarded that sum and, because the Claimant had not engaged on payment details, awarded £54.96 interest at 8% under section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period from 30 September 2019 to 28 May 2020, making a total of £1,092.89.