EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000363/2024 Held at Aberdeen on & September 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members J Clewlow A Atkinson v Represented by, Mr B McKinlay, Trainee Solicitor Miss Freya Pealing st and 1 other — 2024

Miss Pealing worked part-time as a bar tender at Resident X. The case arose from a staff night out on 30 January 2024, organised through a WhatsApp group chat and supported by the directors of The Croft Aberdeen Ltd. During the evening, Mr West sat beside her, made remarks about what happens on a staff night out, and then gestured to put a banknote down her cleavage. He apologised immediately and again shortly afterwards. Although the tribunal had reservations about parts of the claimant's evidence because she remained on the night out and made no contemporaneous complaint to her partner, it accepted her evidence by and large because no one who attended the night out gave evidence for the respondents.

The tribunal held that the first respondent was vicariously liable for Mr West's conduct under s.109 Equality Act 2010. It found a sufficiently close connection between the incident and employment because the event was a staff night out attended almost entirely by employees, the directors knew of and encouraged it, the restaurant was closed, and the company contributed money and arranged food and drink. Applying s.13 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that Mr West treated the claimant less favourably because of her sex. Applying s.26(2), it also found that the conduct was unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which violated her dignity and created a humiliating environment. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's account of alleged telephone remarks by Mr Eagar, and it held that his grievance outcome letter, though capable of better framing, did not amount to harassment.

The victimisation complaint under s.27 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's verbal complaint to Jordan O'Donnell and her written grievance were protected acts, but it found no detriment caused by those acts. On the contrary, it found that the respondents tried to facilitate a return to work by separating her shifts from Mr West, offering shifts, and later confirming that Mr West no longer worked for the company. The tribunal did not accept that she was prevented from working because she raised complaints. The claim in so far as directed against Andrew R Eagar was also dismissed.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded £100 for the unpaid shift on 3 February 2024. For the discrimination findings it awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings, placing the case just below the middle of the lower Vento band, and £255 interest from 30 January 2024 to 19 September 2024. The judgment records the discrimination compensation total as £5,255, and the overall monetary relief in the case as £5,355 once the separate £100 wage award is included.