Claimant v Blue Stockings (UK) Limited

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because she complained that a white man (Jay Bond) had been brought in above her, which she expressed as discriminatory on grounds of sex and race. The dismissing officer could not properly have concluded the claimant's comments amounted to harassment of Mr Bond when she was in fact making a complaint about her own treatment. The complaints were made in good faith.

The tribunal concluded the claimant's admitted comments did not amount to harassment of Mr Bond within the respondent's policy. The claimant was complaining about how she was treated, and any reference to Mr Bond was necessary to articulate her complaint. The respondent failed to show the claimant was guilty of conduct entitling summary dismissal for breach of the harassment policy.

The tribunal found the claimant failed to show facts from which they could conclude sex played a part in any act or omission. All references to sex came from the claimant herself. The claimant's case was largely bereft of comparators, and where comparators existed, circumstances were materially different. The assertion of unconscious bias was unsupported by evidence.

The tribunal found the claimant failed to show facts from which they could conclude race played a part in any act or omission. All references to race came from the claimant herself. The claimant's case was largely bereft of comparators, and where comparators existed, circumstances were materially different. The assertion of unconscious bias was unsupported by evidence.

The tribunal concluded the claimant failed to identify any instances of unwanted conduct related to sex that met the requirements of Section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no evidence of harassment related to sex when considering the nature and effect requirements of the statute.

The tribunal concluded the claimant failed to identify any instances of unwanted conduct related to race that met the requirements of Section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no evidence of harassment related to race when considering the nature and effect requirements of the statute.

The claim was for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The tribunal reviewed all alleged detriments and concluded the claimant was not dismissed because she made protected disclosures. Her role inherently involved raising health and safety issues. The dismissal was found to be victimisation, not whistleblowing detriment.

The tribunal went through 43 alleged detriments systematically. They concluded the claimant's role inherently involved raising health and safety concerns as part of her day-to-day work. The claimant failed to establish that any proven detriments were because she made protected disclosures rather than normal workplace interactions and disagreements.

The tribunal found the claimant did not do like work to Jay Bond. Their roles were materially different: the claimant's was primarily administrative management while Mr Bond's required technical health and safety expertise. The difference in pay reflected the material difference in skills, knowledge and the nature of work required.