ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: S/4102275/2017 Heard at Edinburgh, before a Full Tribunal, on th, th, th, th, th, th, th and th with Deliberation on th April 2018 Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Members: Ms L Crooks Mr S Currie Mrs K Lucas v Lloyds Banking Group plc st — 2018

The tribunal held that Scottish Widows Services Limited, not Lloyds Banking Group plc, was the claimant's employer for the Equality Act 2010 and Employment Rights Act 1996 claims. It found that the first respondent was the holding company, while the claimant's written contract identified Scottish Widows Services Limited as the employer.

On the protected disclosure complaint, the tribunal held that the alleged disclosures were not qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. It treated the September 2016 remark about a possible breach of 'FSA Rules' as a general expression of concern, made in the claimant's own interest, and found that the draft-paper comments and the January 2017 FCA COBS email did not amount to disclosures of information tending to show legal non-compliance. It also found that, apart from the bonus issue, the pleaded consequences were not detriments or were not proved, and that no causal link was shown between any disclosure and the alleged treatment.

The tribunal accepted that the grievance lodged on 14 March 2017 was a protected act, but rejected the victimisation complaint because the matters relied on were not shown to have been caused by that grievance. It found that the internal complaint and appeal were handled within the policy timescales, that the decision not to require the third respondent to stay at home was consistent with the policy, and that the other matters relied on were routine workplace interactions or perceptions rather than retaliatory detriments.

The direct discrimination complaints of sex and race were dismissed. The tribunal found that the decision to ask Krispal Bhachoo to act up as Team Leader was based on his expressed wish and assessed potential, that the claimant's below-average bonus reflected performance assessment and the mitigating circumstances of her husband's illness and death, and that the PIA review work was moved so she could focus on the optimisation review and avoid being overburdened. It also held that the earlier allegations about introductions in November 2014 and March 2015, and the February 2016 paper and condolence points, were out of time insofar as relied on and were not just and equitable to extend.