Case 3320536/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Hunter v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320536/2021
- Decision date
- 16 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr. C. Juden, Mr. F. Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a customer assistant later promoted to shift manager, brought complaints including direct sex discrimination, harassment, equal pay, constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The Tribunal found that her direct sex discrimination claim about a refused transfer request was out of time, was not part of a continuing course of conduct, and was not made out on the facts.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was subjected to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or related to sex, including comments with sexual overtones, unwanted physical contact, and conduct by a deputy store manager. It found that this conduct occurred in a workplace culture where such behaviour was allowed to go unchecked, that managers did not deal with her complaints, and that the respondent had not shown reasonable steps to prevent harassment.
On equal pay, the Tribunal found that the claimant performed like work to her male comparator and should have received the same hourly rate from April 2021. On dismissal, it found that harassment, pay concerns, failure to address her complaints, long hours and the final performance discussion issue amounted to a breach of mutual trust and confidence, entitling her to resign. The unlawful deduction claim succeeded only for three unpaid hours after clocking out on 16 June 2021; the other alleged deductions were dismissed or not proved.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the direct sex discrimination complaint was brought out of time, and also stated that the claim was not made out and time would not be extended. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal found harassment related to sex and unwanted conduct of a sexual nature contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | The Tribunal found that the claimant should have been paid the same hourly rate as her male comparator from April 2021. The award was not quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and that the claimant was entitled to resign and treat the contract as at an end. Remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint succeeded only in respect of outstanding hours worked after clocking out on 16 June 2021, found to be three hours at the correct hourly rate. The remaining unauthorised deduction complaints were dismissed as out of time or not proved. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.65 Equality Act 2010
- s.66 Equality Act 2010
- s.69 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik and Mahmud v BCCI
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.