Miss S Rziek v Hertfordshire County Council — 2023

Miss Rziek brought holiday pay, direct race discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal claims against Hertfordshire County Council. The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn at the hearing and the tribunal recorded it as dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal heard from the claimant, Ms Saunders was not called, and it also heard from Ms Glasheen, Ms Taylor, and Mr Haigh. The discrimination claims were considered with time limits in issue, and the unfair dismissal claim was considered under s.98 ERA 1996.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the phone incident on 16 March 2019, the prayer incident around May 2019, and the PPE incident in November 2020 occurred, but it did not accept that Deborah Watt shouted at the claimant or that the alleged inappropriate comments incident was proved. It found that Ms Saunders' interventions were explained by workplace rules about phone use near service users, the need not to converse in a language different from that used by service users, the use of the prayer room, and the suitability of PPE in the service-user setting. The tribunal therefore rejected the case on less favourable treatment and reason why, and it also held that all of the race discrimination complaints were well out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

On victimisation, the tribunal examined the email of 19 April 2019 and the meeting note of 23 April 2019. It held that these were complaints about bullying and respect, but they did not amount to protected acts because they did not allege discrimination or race discrimination, either expressly or by necessary implication. The tribunal also found no evidence that Ms Saunders or the later alleged perpetrators knew of any protected act, so the causation case failed as well. It reached the same conclusion on time limits, finding the victimisation complaints were out of time and refusing an extension.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the employer's reason for dismissal was conduct, namely that the claimant attended work when she had symptoms which she could reasonably have suspected were due to Covid infection. It found the employer had an honest belief in misconduct after investigation, and that the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal were within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It said that, had it been necessary, it would have found a 75% reduction for contributory fault; no monetary award was made.