Claimant v Ground Truth Intelligence Ltd

Tribunal found dismissal was for redundancy (a potentially fair reason) but there was no pool, no selection process, no consideration of alternative roles, and no consultation. Minimum procedural requirements not met. Additionally, the tribunal found the dismissal was significantly influenced by the claimant's protected acts (allegations of sex discrimination), making it both procedurally and substantively unfair.

The tribunal found the first protected act occurred on 18 September 2023 (grievance email alleging discrimination). Two allegations of victimisation succeeded: (1) threatening redundancy if claimant refused reduced severance (26 September 2023), only 8 days after first protected act; (2) the dismissal itself was significantly influenced by protected acts. Evidence included threat of redundancy pre-dating alleged financial crisis, deliberate destruction of WhatsApp messages, and selective approach to redundancies. Other allegations failed as they pre-dated protected acts or were not established on the facts.

Tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of sex. Differences in pay, equity, and treatment were explained by timing of joining the business, role differences, co-founder status involving financial investment, and commercial negotiations. Claimant joined after business founded; co-founders had put in money and taken financial risk with no salary for first year.

Tribunal found the alleged unwanted conduct (communications during settlement negotiations, criticisms of performance, tone of communications) was not 'related to sex' as required by s.26(1)(a) Equality Act 2010. While some communications were unprofessional and the tribunal was critical of Mr Kelly's management style, this did not constitute harassment related to sex.

Claims relating to January-July 2020 consultancy period were significantly out of time with no jurisdiction to extend. For employment period: tribunal found claimant did 'like work' to comparators Van Deventer and Bekker, but respondent established material factor defence based on location (different geographies/labour markets) and market factors. Claimant was not doing 'like work' to Bill Yong due to his wider remit, seniority, and expanded geography. Equal value claims were adjourned for separate determination but respondent's material factor defence would likely succeed.

Claimant claimed unpaid commission £100,000-£150,000. Tribunal found that by email exchange of 21 January 2021, claimant had agreed variation of contract changing remuneration to base salary plus equity with no commission element. This was evidenced by subsequent salary increases to £90,000 (July 2021) and £135,000 (January 2022) matching co-founders. Claim for unpaid pension contributions was not pursued and would be out of time.