Case 4108097/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Member J Auld Tribunal Member M McAllister Mrs J Bradbury v Sky In-Home Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4108097/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp Tribunal
- Panel members
- J Auld, M McAllister
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J Auld Tribunal Member M McAllister Mrs J Bradbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Bradbury was employed by Sky In-Home Service Ltd from November 2010 and completed the Women in Home Service programme in 2018, becoming a Field Engineer. The dispute arose from a 18 June 2020 call with Rosemary Cook about an inclusion presentation, a grievance raised on 19 June 2020, an absence review on 11 September 2020, and the claimant's dismissal on 30 October 2020 after she returned from Spain without self-isolating. The tribunal found the dismissal reason was conduct, namely a belief that she had breached the self-isolation rules and put customers at risk, and it dismissed the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.
On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that Ms Cook said she would have suffered oppression because of the colour of her skin. It held that this was direct discrimination because of race, that the later handling of the grievance and the absence review contributed to less favourable treatment, and that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal awarded £12,000 for injury to feelings and £2,000 interest, making £14,000 in total.
The indirect sex discrimination claim failed. The tribunal did not accept that the Women in Home Service arrangements or the ladder assessment amounted to a proved PCP causing the alleged disadvantage, and it also held that the claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The victimisation claim also failed: the 19 June 2020 email was treated as a protected act, but the tribunal found no detriment caused by it.
In relation to the dismissal, the tribunal accepted that there had been a reasonable investigation, a genuine belief in gross misconduct, and a decision within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996, even though it noted that the dismissal letter did not give detailed reasons and that the decision was taken after a short adjournment. It found that the claimant had not self-isolated on return from Spain and was in repudiatory breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to terminate summarily. It made no separate award for alleged lost earnings during the June 2020 absence because no evidence of loss was produced.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account of Ms Cook's remark about oppression and skin colour, held the remark and the later handling of the grievance and absence review were less favourable treatment, and extended time as just and equitable. | Upheld | Race | £14,000 |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination under s.19. The tribunal found no proved PCP from the Women in Home Service / ladder-assessment allegations and held the claim out of time, with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal treated the 19 June 2020 grievance email as a protected act but found no detriment causally linked to it. The top-line judgment also described the claim as outwith jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The tribunal found conduct was the reason, based on a genuine belief that the claimant had failed to self-isolate after Spain and had exposed customers to risk, and held the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claimant's failure to self-isolate amounted to repudiatory breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to terminate summarily. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong / Madarassy burden of proof
- Vento bands
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.