Ms A Tullis v Indigo Pipelines Ltd — 2024

Ms Tullis worked for Indigo Pipelines Ltd through an agency from 14 March 2024 and was trained into asset engagement work. The tribunal accepted that Ms Scott made a salary offer of 32,000 for a permanent role, but it found that the claimant did not accept that offer and that both parties still expected a written contract. There was no agreement on all essential terms and no sufficient certainty or intention to create a binding contract, so the breach of contract claim was dismissed.

The victimisation claim was brought on the basis of race. The tribunal rejected the alleged protected acts said to have occurred in conversations with Ms Kinsman on 15 and 29 August 2024 and with Ms Thompson on 29 August 2024, finding that the claimant was complaining about the salary negotiation and the reduction in the offer rather than making a sufficiently clear allegation of race discrimination. It preferred the evidence of Ms Kinsman and Ms Thompson, and it also relied on the claimant's follow-up email describing the matter as a misunderstanding and anticipating a future working relationship.

The tribunal did find that the call with Ms Critchley on 30 August 2024 amounted to a protected act because the claimant expressly referred to discrimination, equal pay, and being a woman of colour. However, the dismissal decision and Ms Scott's comments on the earlier call that day pre-dated that protected act, Ms Kinsman's non-response on 2 September 2024 could not be linked to it because she had not been told about the call, and Mr Dugdale's worth more comment was treated as a detriment but not one caused by the protected act. The challenged parts of the respondent's pleadings were also held to fall within judicial proceedings immunity, and the victimisation claim was dismissed.