Mr P Ward, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed as a court security officer at Reading County Court. In May 2016 she complained about a colleague, Seedy Saidykhan, and the tribunal found that Mr Gohil took the complaint seriously, that the matter was handled informally, and that a workplace mediation followed in August 2016. The grievance outcome letter of 6 September 2016 did not expressly deal with the sex discrimination allegation in terms, and there was delay in the handling of the grievance, but the tribunal held that this was not itself a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

In March and April 2017 the claimant asked for three continuous weeks of holiday in August 2017. Mr Rajgor refused the request, saying extended leave was only granted in exceptional circumstances and that the reasons given were not exceptional. The tribunal held that the refusal was not itself a breach of trust and confidence, although it could contribute to an accumulation of conduct. On the discrimination issue, the tribunal rejected Mr Rajgor's assertion that he did not know the writer was female, but found that he did not take the claimant's sex into account when refusing the request.

On 11 October 2017 Mr Rajgor carried out a mystery shopper test at Reading County Court and reported that the claimant's searching did not meet the required standard. The tribunal found that report to be accurate and fair, held that the claimant was not singled out because she was a woman, and concluded that the suspension and disciplinary investigation were justified. Mr Nielsen issued a first and final written warning on 30 November 2017, but Mr Baverstock allowed the appeal on 18 January 2018 and removed the warning entirely. The tribunal found nothing in the warning or the appeal outcome from which it could infer sex discrimination.

The claimant resigned by email on 29 January 2018. The tribunal held that, viewing the matters cumulatively, the only culpable conduct related to the 2016 grievance handling and the holiday refusal, but that the claimant had affirmed her contract long before resignation. Her reliance on the appeal outcome as a last straw failed, and she was therefore not constructively dismissed or unfairly dismissed. Because the harassment claim added nothing to the sex discrimination claim, that claim also failed.