Claimant v Newlands Care Angus Ltd

The tribunal found no evidence that delays in promotion to Senior Care Assistant or removal from on-call rotas were because of the claimant's age. Comparators were not materially similar as they had more qualifications or experience, and a misunderstanding over whether the claimant intended to leave explained the delay in offering promotion.

The claim succeeded in relation to one incident only: at a supervision meeting on 14 December 2022, managers spoke Polish to each other while the claimant (English, non-Polish speaker) was present. This was less favourable treatment because of race, as a comparator who understood Polish would have benefited. Other allegations, including that Polish was routinely spoken to exclude her and her dismissal was discriminatory, failed as they were not linked to her race.

The claim succeeded in relation to the same 14 December 2022 meeting: Ms Masiak and Ms Natzel speaking Polish during a sensitive meeting about the claimant's performance had the effect of violating her dignity and creating an intimidating and humiliating environment. It was reasonable for her to feel that way. Other allegations failed either because conduct was too infrequent and innocuous, or not related to her race.

The claimant alleged that her dismissal was because she said in the 17 January 2023 meeting that colleagues' behaviour was racist. The tribunal accepted this was a protected act, but found the dismissal was not because of it. Ms Masiak had already raised performance and conduct issues and the dismissal resulted from irreconcilable differences on those matters, not the protected act.

The claimant alleged she suffered detriment (being invited to a conduct meeting and removed from rotas and risk assessment duties) because of making protected disclosures about health and safety. The tribunal found no causal link: the meeting was prompted by genuine performance concerns, and the rota/assessment changes were because she struggled with the required electronic template and was not needed on call that month.

The claimant alleged her dismissal was because she had made protected disclosures about health and safety concerns. The tribunal found the reasons for dismissal were irreconcilable differences over the claimant's conduct towards colleagues, her inability to prepare risk assessments, inaccuracies in record keeping and disagreement over return of the company car. There was no evidence the dismissal was prompted by any protected disclosure.

The respondent deducted £160 for unreturned uniforms and ID, and £81 for car recovery and cleaning. These deductions were not authorised under the claimant's contract (she had only received a standard CA contract, not the SCA contract containing deduction clauses). Although the claimant was later reimbursed £224.03, she was still owed a net sum of £16.97. The claim for unpaid hours where she worked less than 35 hours per week failed as the contract allowed flexibility in hours.

The claimant alleged she was not paid for accrued but untaken holidays at termination. The respondent's schedule, supported by payslips, showed she had taken more days than she had accrued and had been paid for all leave taken. The tribunal found she had no outstanding accrued leave at the point of dismissal.