Case 3329427/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Macey, Counsel For the v Mr P Bownes solicitor — 2017
- Case reference
- 3329427/2017
- Decision date
- 20 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr C Davie, Mrs L Gaywood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Macey, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningTime limits were central. The tribunal found that, because the ACAS early conciliation period was 31 days and the ET1 was presented on 14 December 2017, the earliest act within time was 15 August 2017. It refused a just and equitable extension under Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] EWCA Civ 576 because the claimant gave no explanation for delay and had not acted promptly, so earlier allegations about tray heights, hair nets, out-of-date stock, working time, Mr Casey and Ms Napper were out of time.
On the merits, the claimant had worked as a night shift production manager from 1 February 2016 and was suspended on 27 May 2017 after grievances from colleagues about her management style. Anna Wasowska carried out a wide investigation, interviewing 25 employees, and many described the claimant as rude, abrasive, aggressive, intimidating, or similar. Mr Batey chaired the disciplinary hearing, concluded there was overwhelming evidence, and dismissed her on 15 August 2017; Mr Beverley later heard the appeal in the claimant’s absence and upheld dismissal. The tribunal found the suspension, investigation, disciplinary process and appeal were reasonable and that the reason for dismissal was the claimant’s management style and behaviour.
The tribunal rejected the Employment Rights Act whistleblowing claims on the basis that the alleged disclosures were shift housekeeping issues and not qualifying protected disclosures under s.43B, and it rejected the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim because the dismissal was not because of protected disclosures. The race and sex discrimination claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Casey hugged the claimant from behind on 11 January 2017 and that Ms Napper made the "Paki shop" comment, but those harassment and victimisation allegations were out of time and no just and equitable extension was granted; it also found no evidence that the claimant suffered detriment because she had made complaints. No compensation or other remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held the alleged disclosures were shift housekeeping matters and not qualifying protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996; it also treated the earlier allegations as out of time and refused a just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 for making protected disclosures; the tribunal found the sole reason for dismissal was the claimant's aggressive, uncompromising management style, not protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 concerning suspension, investigation and dismissal; the tribunal found a comparator would also have been suspended and investigated, and dismissal was for conduct rather than race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 concerning handling of complaints about Mr Casey and the dismissal; the tribunal found no sex-based treatment and held the dismissal was for management style and behaviour. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted the alleged touching and hugging by Mr Casey on 11 January 2017 occurred, but held the claim was out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] EWCA Civ 576
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996 stop-the-clock
- s.13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment
- s.27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 protected disclosure
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 automatic unfair dismissal
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.