In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was employed by Thames Transit Ltd t/a Stagecoach West as a bus driver from 27 November 2017. The central events arose from a meeting with Mr Henley-Burns on 1 October 2019 about customer complaints. The tribunal found that one complaint discussed at the meeting had been wrongly attributed to the claimant, that the claimant had not been involved in the driving complaint, and that Mr Henley-Burns said to her, after a discussion about being argumentative with customers, words to the effect of “I’m sorry for your husband” and “I’m not surprised” when she said she was not married. Her grievance about that meeting was upheld in part: the respondent accepted the comment that it was unsurprising she was not married was unacceptable, arranged training for Mr Henley-Burns, and said he would not interview or contact her without a third party present.

The claimant returned to work in January 2020 on an agreed four-day pattern designed to avoid contact with Mr Henley-Burns. After furlough, that arrangement could not continue because Mr Henley-Burns was to be based at Banbury five days a week. The respondent instead put in place a short-term arrangement reducing the likelihood of contact, kept the third-party arrangement in place, and recommended mediation. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s statutory sick pay was not paid for three weeks after a fit note was not processed, but this was an administrative error and the arrears were later paid.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal accepted that some of the allegations could amount to less favourable treatment, but held the burden of proof did not shift because there was no evidence that a man would have been treated differently in materially similar circumstances. It also found that the complaint was brought well outside the three-month time limit and that there was no basis to extend time just and equitably. On harassment related to sex, the tribunal found some unwanted conduct but held it was not related to sex and did not satisfy the objective element of the statutory test. It also held that the claim was out of time and would not have been time-extended.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the implied term of trust and confidence and held that the matters relied on, taken individually or together, did not amount to a fundamental breach. It found the respondent had acted reasonably in responding to the first grievance, that it was operationally reasonable not to preserve the original roster arrangement indefinitely, that the sick pay error was promptly corrected, and that the second grievance and appeal were dealt with reasonably. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant resigned but was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint failed.