Case 4107984/2020 · Employment Tribunal
: J S Anderson J Burnett Ms K Reilly v RT Management Bridgeton Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4107984/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- J S Anderson, J Burnett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: J S Anderson J Burnett Ms K Reilly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for RT Management Bridgeton Limited as a Sandwich Artist from 8 August 2020 until her dismissal by telephone on 8 October 2020, during her probationary period. She had long-standing medical conditions and told the respondent at interview that she was undergoing medical investigations and had fatigue, joint problems and allergies. The tribunal found that she made qualifying protected disclosures about rest breaks, Covid controls, food hygiene and other health and safety matters, including reporting concerns to Environmental Health on 15 September 2020, and that the principal reason for dismissal was those disclosures under s.103A ERA. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, and a compensatory award of £2,092.80 was made for 15 weeks' net wage loss; no basic award was made because she had less than one year's service.
The tribunal also upheld the section 26 Equality Act harassment claim. It found that the claimant had the protected characteristics of disability and belief in veganism, and that the conduct was also related to sex: comments by Himanshu Lahar about medical tests and allergies, encouragement to eat meat and handling meat close to her face, and the failure to provide a sanitary waste bin in the toilet, which forced her to carry used sanitary products through the premises. The tribunal held that this conduct was unwanted, related to her protected characteristics, and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment. It awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, assessed at the lower end of the middle Vento band, and held the respondent liable for its employee's conduct.
On wages, the tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of a £12.60 'discrepancy' deduction and a separate unpaid overtime loss of £26.16, and awarded compensation for those sums. It also found that the respondent had refused to permit the claimant to take uninterrupted 20-minute rest breaks under regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because she often worked alone with no cover, and awarded £517.44, including £17.44 for financial loss and £500 for the respondent's default.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures about rest breaks and health and safety, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA. No basic award was made because the claimant had less than one year's service. | Upheld | — | £2,093 |
| Harassment | The section 26 EqA claim succeeded on conduct related to disability, sex and belief in veganism. The tribunal treated veganism as a philosophical belief, found the conduct unwanted and hostile, and assessed injury to feelings at the lower end of the middle Vento band. | Upheld | Disability | £10,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found two unlawful wage deductions: a £12.60 deduction described as a discrepancy and a separate unpaid overtime sum of £26.16. The reasons and award discussion identify both sums. | Upheld | — | £39 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held that the respondent refused to permit uninterrupted 20-minute rest breaks under reg. 12 WTR and awarded compensation including £17.44 financial loss and £500 for the respondent's default. The reasons at para 128 state £517.55, but paras 125 and the operative order state £517.44; this amount follows the latter. | Upheld | — | £517 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,649
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,093
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Phoenix House Limited v Stockman
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen/Barton burden of proof
- Vento bands
- Prison Service v Johnson
- Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services Ltd
- Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd
- s.30 WTR 1998
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
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.