Ms S Ellis v Represented by: Mr C Ellis - Lay Representative Deichmann-Shoes UK Limited — 2025

Ms Ellis worked as a sales assistant for Deichmann at the Braehead store until 14 October 2024. The tribunal found that when she attended Abigail Gill's disciplinary hearing on 17 September 2024 as Ms Gill's companion, she was told that she could not speak on Ms Gill's behalf. It held that this breached s.10(2B) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and awarded two weeks' pay at Ms Ellis's weekly rate of £191.64, totalling £383.28. The tribunal rejected the argument that the separate refusal to allow a laptop into the hearing was itself a breach, finding that this did not prevent Ms Ellis from addressing procedural points at the hearing.

The detriment claim under s.12 ERelA failed. The tribunal found that the conversations with Lewis McKillop on 20 September and 8 October 2024, and the alleged reduction in working hours, were not shown to be detriments suffered because Ms Ellis had accompanied Ms Gill. It found no evidence of the sort of disadvantage required by the case law, and accepted that the rota changes were explained by the end of the busy back-to-school period, the return of staff from another store, annual leave, volunteering days, and earlier requests by Ms Ellis to reduce her hours.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.12(3) ERelA was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that there had been a misunderstanding and miscommunication between Ms Clark and Ms Webb about what a companion could do at the disciplinary hearing, and found no malicious intent. It also rejected the arguments based on alleged lack of confidentiality, the whistleblowing complaint made by Ms Ellis's father on 17 September 2024, and the fact that Ms Ellis continued to work with Mr McKillop, finding that none of those matters amounted to a fundamental breach of contract or showed that accompanying Ms Gill was the principal reason for any breach.

The sexual harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was also dismissed. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr McKillop made the July 2024 remark about 'that type of hand motion' and the 8 October 2024 remark that a new lanyard would be 'down to my cock'. It held that both comments were conduct of a sexual nature and unwanted, but found there was no sufficient evidence that Ms Ellis perceived them as violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The constructive dismissal/discrimination claim under s.39 Equality Act 2010 was likewise dismissed, because the tribunal found the July incident was not what led to the resignation and that the respondent did investigate the complaints raised, even if there had been some initial delay.