Mrs S Stannard v Overseas Courier Service (London) Limited Mr L Farr Mr T P Jones — 2021

The claimant was a long-serving employee who returned to work after a back injury in June 2017 and later resigned in August 2018 after her grievance and appeal had been rejected. The tribunal accepted that the workplace had a male-dominated culture in which sexualised and sexist comments were made, but it held that many of the claimant's pre-June 2017 complaints were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for most of them. It treated the older pregnancy-era and other historic incidents as too remote, except for complaints concerning AB, which it considered separately.

The tribunal upheld direct sex discrimination and harassment in relation to the period after the claimant's return to work. It accepted that Mr Jones and Mr Farr made comments about when she planned to retire, that Mr Jones linked her husband's work and childcare responsibilities to her own ability to work longer hours, and that other staff and AB made sex-based or sexualised comments about her appearance and clothing. It found those comments were directed at her because she was a woman and that they amounted to unwanted conduct, including conduct of a sexual nature, with the requisite effect under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the removal of the Boden account and the appointment of Mr Rees as Head of E-Commerce were sex-related acts. It accepted the respondent's explanations for those decisions. It also dismissed victimisation, finding that although the claimant had done protected acts through AH's grievance work and her own grievance, she had not suffered a detriment because of those acts.

The tribunal criticised the grievance process, particularly the refusal to appoint an external investigator and the way the appeal was handled. It found that Mr Rathakrishnan did not properly investigate the appeal, did not engage with the evidence, and reached a decision without an adequate review of the materials. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the cumulative conduct, including the sexualised workplace culture, the retirement and childcare comments, and the inadequate grievance appeal, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned because of that breach and was therefore constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.