Case 3203145/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Angela Szmolai v ISS Facility Services Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3203145/2019
- Decision date
- 29 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Members
- Panel members
- Mr D Ross, Ms M Daniels
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Angela Szmolai
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was an area manager on a cleaning contract. The tribunal found that the contract had performance issues, including missed and poor cleans, and that Peter Joyce had been brought in to address those issues. The claimant's complaints concerned night work, grievance outcomes, suspension, collection of company property, and alleged excessive monitoring or pressure after her grievance.
The tribunal dismissed the direct sex discrimination allegations. It found that the claimant had not objected in principle to cleaning or night work, that arrangements for the 20 most problematic shops were to be organised by the claimant and her manager, and that a male comparator also worked nights. It also found that the suspension was supported by adequate reasons pending investigation and that a male manager was suspended at the same time for similar reasons.
The harassment claim was dismissed because, although some conduct was unwanted, the tribunal found no link to the claimant's sex. The victimisation claim was dismissed because the tribunal found there was no protected act once the claimant abandoned the allegation that the 28 August 2019 telephone call was sex discrimination. The tribunal upheld the conceded wage deduction and holiday pay claims, ordering payment by the second respondent because of the TUPE transfer.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 dismissed. The allegation about the 28 August 2019 telephone call was abandoned as a sex discrimination allegation during evidence, and the remaining allegations were not found to be because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010 dismissed. The tribunal found some matters were unwanted, including suspension, but found no plausible or credible link to the claimant's sex and no purpose related to violating dignity or creating the proscribed environment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 dismissed. The tribunal found the claim could not succeed for want of a protected act after the claimant withdrew the assertion that the 28 August 2019 treatment was sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent conceded unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal awarded the net sum of £109.41. | Upheld | — | £109 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was conceded by the first respondent in the gross sum of £821.30. The second respondent could satisfy it through payroll with tax and National Insurance deducted. | Upheld | — | £821 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £931
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33
- Unite the Union v Nailard [2018] EWCA Civ 1203
- Parekh v LB Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 1630
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33
- Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] I.C.R. 159
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1913
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.