Case 3200189/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Phillips v Community Transport Waltham Forest Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200189/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Phillips
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Phillips was employed by Community Transport Waltham Forest Ltd from 29 January 2015 until her dismissal on 25 October 2019. The tribunal found that the dismissal was prompted by an incident involving her supervisor and by a wider history of complaints about her conduct. It accepted Ms Tredoux's evidence that she genuinely believed the Claimant had made a homophobic comment to her supervisor, and that belief was based on reasonable grounds when viewed against the history of workplace concerns and complaints.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the procedure was found to be defective. The Claimant was not told in writing of the allegations, was not informed of her right to be accompanied, and was not given a separate disciplinary hearing. Ms Tredoux carried out the investigation and also took part in the dismissal decision, and the Claimant was not given an opportunity to address the decision-making panel or have mitigation presented on her behalf. The tribunal held that these failings meant the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, even though dismissal itself was within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal also found that, had a fair process been followed, it would have taken no more than two weeks to complete the investigation and disciplinary stages. It assessed the chance of a lesser sanction at 10% and found a 90% chance that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event. It therefore limited the compensatory loss accordingly and made no award for loss of statutory rights or job-search expenses because a fair dismissal would likely have followed within 10 weeks.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant made the disputed remarks, including the 'Do you fancy me' comment, that the conduct was unwanted and homophobic, and that it amounted to gross misconduct and a breach of the Respondent's Positive Work Environment Policy. On remedy, the basic award was calculated at £1,136.80 before a 50% reduction for contributory conduct, leaving £568.40. The compensatory award was calculated at £530.54 before the same 50% reduction, then uplifted by 15% for failure to follow the ACAS Code, producing £305.06. The total award was £873.46.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim succeeded; the tribunal reduced compensation by 50% for contributory conduct and applied a 15% ACAS uplift for procedural failings. | Upheld | — | £873 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim dismissed after the tribunal found the disputed remarks were made and amounted to gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £873
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £568
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £305
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) 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.