Ms Leigh Andrews v St Mungo’s Community Housing Association — 2019

This was a single-issue victimisation claim. The Tribunal found that Ms Leigh Andrews had done a protected act in 2004 by issuing an equal pay questionnaire and equal pay claim against Broadway, and that St Mungo's withdrew its offer of locum bank work to her on 8 June 2018. The dispute was whether that withdrawal was because of the protected act, because of recollections of historic bullying allegations from 2004, or for some other reason.

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's explanation that the decision flowed from a general policy against re-employing people who had left amid conduct concerns. It found that no written policy was produced, that the offer letter to the Claimant did not refer to such a policy, and that there was no documentary support for a consistently applied practice. It also rejected the explanation based on historic bullying allegations, finding that the descriptions given by Ms Giles and Mr Sinclair were generalised, internally inconsistent, and not credible as the real reason for revoking the offer.

The Tribunal further found that Mr Sinclair knew about the equal pay proceedings and that the account that he did not know about them was implausible for a small organisation. It did not accept the evidence about the telephone conversation between Ms Giles and Mr Sinclair, finding it unreliable and inherently implausible. Applying the burden of proof provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the protected act was at least a material factor in the decision to revoke the offer and that the Respondent had not shown that it played no part whatsoever.

The claim therefore succeeded. The judgment records that the case was listed for a separate remedy hearing on 6 August 2019 and gives directions for an updated schedule of loss and witness statements. No monetary award was determined in this liability judgment.