Claimant v SMG Europe Holdings Limited t/a ASM Global

The tribunal found that alleged unfavourable treatment either did not occur as alleged, or where it did (such as suspension on health grounds and requiring medical evidence), it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of managing the claimant's absence, creating a suitable return to work, and safeguarding her wellbeing. The respondents' actions were reasonable in all the circumstances.

The tribunal found that the alleged PCPs either did not exist or did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The respondents did not have constructive knowledge of the specific disadvantages alleged, and the steps proposed by the claimant (such as full pay during sick leave, allowing immediate return to work during suspension) were not reasonable in the circumstances. The respondents took reasonable steps to explore adjustments including offering occupational health assessments.

The tribunal found that the most serious allegations relating to events at the January 2022 Christmas party (entering toilet cubicles, unwanted advances) were not proven on the balance of probabilities. The contemporaneous evidence (CCTV and text messages) did not support the claimant's account. The tribunal found Mr McInulty entered the toilets out of welfare concern for the claimant who was unwell and had fallen asleep. Other alleged incidents were either not proven or did not amount to harassment related to sex.

The tribunal found that the alleged conduct either did not occur as alleged, or where it did occur (such as asking about the claimant's health in welfare meetings, Ms Williams continuing to communicate with the claimant), it did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a proscribed environment. The respondents' communications were courteous, considerate and reasonable in the circumstances. The claimant had an unjustified sense of grievance about these matters.

The tribunal found that the claimant did do protected acts (submitting grievances alleging discrimination). However, the alleged detriments either did not occur as alleged, or where they did (such as reduction to statutory sick pay, suspension, dismissal), the protected acts were not a material influence on the decision-makers' minds. The decisions were taken for legitimate operational and welfare reasons, not because of the grievances. The grievance process delays were caused by the claimant's own extensions and challenges, not by victimisation.