In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked for R1 from 16 April 2016 until her resignation in April 2018. The tribunal found that the workplace was informal, under-managed, and lacking clear structure, with Mr Christofi as the senior figure and R3 acting as an intermediary rather than as a formal HR lead. It accepted that the claimant’s workload was heavy, that responsibilities were unclear, and that concerns about overwork and pay emerged in late 2017 after the claimant discovered that another employee was paid more than she was.

The claimant raised a grievance in January 2018. Mr Marcus met her on 26 January and issued a grievance outcome on 5 March 2018 rejecting the complaints. The tribunal criticised the absence of notes of the grievance meeting and the delay in sending the outcome, but found that Mr Marcus had reached an honest and legitimate view on the material before him. It also found that R3’s move to Kings Avenue on 9 March 2018 was for proper organisational reasons, not to pressure the claimant out.

The claimant alleged that between 9 March and 27 April 2018 R3 subjected her to unwanted sexual touching and sexualised comments, including touching her breasts, bottom and genital area, and asking sexual questions in the office. The tribunal accepted that there had been some jokey and sexualised banter between the claimant and R3, and that R3 had on one occasion touched the claimant’s blouse, but it did not accept the allegations of repeated unwanted touching, breast squeezing, or the sexual questions as pleaded. It attached weight to the absence of any contemporaneous complaint and to the lack of corroboration from colleagues.

The claimant was also subjected to a disciplinary investigation about fee-note performance. Mr Marcus’ recommendation after the 10 April meeting was that the matter should be addressed by a detailed job description and improved fee-note procedures, rather than by discipline. The tribunal held that the disciplinary outcome was reasonable and potentially favourable to the claimant, that the respondent’s conduct did not destroy mutual trust and confidence, and that the claimant had not established constructive unfair dismissal. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and the sex discrimination claims. No remedy award was made because the hearing was liability-only and the claims failed.