Ms C Ritchie v Goom Electrical Limited — 2025

The claimant worked for Goom Electrical Limited as a Booking Administrator from 17 December 2020 to 27 September 2022. She was 66 when she started, her KPI was increased from 100 to 120 calls per day on 15 February 2022, and she later raised complaints about office noise, workload, call-counting accuracy, and extra administrative tasks. She went on sick leave in August 2022, resigned on 27 September 2022, and the grievance outcome letter was issued on 5 October 2022 after the grievance meeting of 8 September 2022.

The tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claims. It found that the claimant did receive the December 2021 incentive bonus, that the failure to bring her desk diaries to the 8 September meeting did not disadvantage her, and that the KPI comments did not amount to less favourable treatment because of age. On indirect discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the 120-calls-per-day requirement was a PCP, but found no evidence that people over 60 were particularly disadvantaged or that the claimant herself suffered a relevant disadvantage.

It also dismissed the harassment claim related to age. The tribunal rejected allegations about the grievance outcome letter, noisy or disruptive behaviour, laughter about the KPI increase, accusations that she could not achieve 120 calls per day, and alleged conduct by Sholte Charran, finding either that the conduct did not occur, was not unwanted conduct related to age, or could not reasonably be treated as harassment.

The public interest disclosure detriment claim failed because the tribunal held that the matters raised about noise, workload, the dog Marley, desk placement, and Sholte Charran's mobile phone did not amount to qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. The unlawful deduction claim for 26 hours and 31 minutes of overtime was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have brought it earlier. The breach of contract claim failed because the contract allowed reasonable changes and did not require prior consultation before the KPI increase, the automatically unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no proved breach or constructive dismissal in response to the resignation, and the failure to allow accompaniment claim was not made out because the evidence did not establish whether an invitation or refusal occurred. No monetary award was made.