(1) Mr G Brighty (3200346/2021) (2) Mr W Butt (3200811/2021) (3) Miss A Fountain (1401186/2021) v Elevate Staffing Ltd — 2022

This was a liability-only judgment heard at Southampton over 22 to 28 November 2022. The tribunal found that the Claimants were zero-hours workers on the Respondent's HOP campaign and that they were removed from the campaign on 20 December 2020, but it did not find that any of them had been dismissed from employment. The tribunal also found that the Third Claimant later resumed work through a different profile, which was inconsistent with a dismissal finding.

For the First Claimant, the tribunal accepted that his 9 December 2020 WhatsApp/email complaints amounted to qualifying and protected disclosures, including material about sex-related abuse and health and safety concerns. His automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because no dismissal was proved and he did not establish that any removal from the campaign was because of protected disclosure. His direct sex discrimination claim also failed because he did not show less favourable treatment, and the tribunal noted that the Third Claimant was treated in the same way. His breach of contract complaint was withdrawn.

For the Second Claimant, the tribunal distinguished between his race and sex claims. It upheld direct race discrimination in relation to events on 9 December 2020, accepting that Ms Stephens used racially loaded language and that the burden shifted to the Respondent, which did not prove the treatment was unrelated to race. His whistleblowing dismissal and detriment claims failed because the tribunal did not accept that the alleged disclosures were made in the public interest and it did not find a dismissal from employment. His direct sex discrimination claim failed, and his unlawful deduction claim failed because travel expenses required prior written agreement and the alleged £80 underpayment was not proved on the payslip evidence.

For the Third Claimant, the tribunal upheld direct sex discrimination arising from the 9 December 2020 verbal exchange, finding abusive sex-related comments and holding the Respondent liable for the Second Claimant's conduct. It rejected the separate allegation of further sex discrimination on 17 December 2020 and rejected victimisation, finding that the asserted protected act on 17 December was not proved and that the later removal from the campaign was not shown to be because of protected acts. No remedy was determined in this judgment; the tribunal recorded that remedy for the successful complaints remained to be decided.