Case 4106707/2013 · Employment Tribunal
F Atack Members : Ms N Bakshi Mr H P Boyd Ms Alyson Marshall v Represented by:15 Mr A Mason - Advocate Advocate General for Scotland — 2017
- Case reference
- 4106707/2013
- Decision date
- 5 July 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iain
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms N Bakshi, Mr H P Boyd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
F Atack Members : Ms N Bakshi Mr H P Boyd Ms Alyson Marshall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Marshall worked as a kennel assistant at HMNB Clyde Dog Section from 16 May 2009. The tribunal found that she had a sexual relationship with Mr X from the second half of 2010 until the end of December 2012, that the relationship became coercive, and that Mr X’s management of her became overly controlling. When the matter emerged in January 2013, Mr X was moved from the Dog Section to divisional HQ, an investigation was started under the Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct) Regulations 2009, and the claimant’s complaint and Mr X’s grievance were handled separately.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s phase 2 allegations that the respondent directly discriminated against her or harassed her during the investigation and grievance process. It held that not suspending Mr X, not including a female officer, asking the claimant to attend the main police building and later enter by the rear/fire exit, the pace of the investigation, the update schedule, and the handling of the grievance were not acts of direct sex discrimination or harassment. The tribunal found the investigation was serious and thorough, involved 31 witnesses and forensic evidence, and that the delays identified were not shown to be because of the claimant’s sex.
The tribunal did, however, find that the respondent had not taken all reasonable steps for the purposes of section 109(4) of the Equality Act 2010. It considered that training and follow-up arrangements were not sufficiently robust, that line management of the Dog Section was too remote, and that some employees knew of Mr X’s behaviour but did not report it. Even so, the tribunal held that there was no continuing act linking the phase 1 conduct to the phase 2 allegations, that the last act complained of against Mr X was 6 January 2013, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123. The claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal treated the pleaded sex discrimination allegations as including both the phase 1 conduct by Mr X and the phase 2 allegations about the respondent’s investigation and grievance handling. It found no direct sex discrimination in phase 2 and held the phase 1 allegations were out of time, so the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal treated the pleaded harassment allegations as including the sexual harassment by Mr X and the phase 2 allegations about the investigation and grievance process. It found the phase 2 matters were not harassment and held the phase 1 allegations were out of time, so the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010 comparator test
- s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment
- s.109(4) Equality Act 2010 all reasonable steps defence
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limit / just and equitable extension
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Canniffe v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
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.