E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101775/20235 Held at Aberdeen on 12, 14, & & June 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members Dr. N Richardson Ms V Lockhart Mrs K Anderson (or Farquharson) v Ltd st and 1 other — 2023

The claimant had worked for the respondent company since 6 June 1995 as Office Manager. The tribunal heard evidence about a long history of informal working arrangements, but treated most of that background as context rather than as the basis of the substantive findings. The central incident occurred on 15 December 2022 when Jim Clark commented to the claimant about being late into work and, in the course of the exchange, made remarks about her menopause. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account of the exchange, found the comments insulting and demeaning, and held that they amounted to unwanted conduct related to sex within section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal found that the conduct had the purpose of violating the claimant's dignity and that, in any event, it had that effect when assessed from the claimant's perspective and in the circumstances of the case. It cited Hewage v Grampian Health Board on the burden of proof but said the evidence allowed positive findings without relying on burden-shifting. Applying the Vento guidance, it assessed injury to feelings in the lower part of the middle band and awarded £10,000 plus £228 interest.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had not resigned on 15 December 2022. After the incident she sought to address matters by grievance on 19 December, but the respondent cut off her remote access to the accounts system the same day. The tribunal held that Jim Clark's conduct, viewed in context, was sufficiently serious to entitle her to resign without notice and that the later handling of the grievance and loss of access amounted to a last straw. Applying section 95 ERA 1996 and the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Buckland, Mahmud v BCCI and Garner, it upheld the unfair dismissal claim and awarded a basic award together with compensation for loss of wages, pension loss and job-search expenses.

On pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had mistakenly carried forward a June overtime figure into later payroll months, producing an overpayment of £555. It accepted that the parties treated the balance in the 'Tiddly' account as accrued wages and allowed set-off of the overpayment against that balance, leaving £8,325 payable. It also declined to make any uplift under section 207A TULR(C)A 1992 for the grievance process, finding that the brief delay before resignation did not make an uplift just and equitable.