Claimant v ISS Facility Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The 21 factual allegations underlying the constructive dismissal claim were either not established on the balance of probabilities, or where established the respondent had reasonable and proper cause and the conduct was neither calculated nor likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence relationship. The cumulative effect also fell well short of the required threshold.
Although bringing claim 8000146/2023 was a protected act, the 16 factual allegations relied upon as detriments were either not established, not detrimental, or not because of the protected act. The Tribunal found no facts proved from which it could conclude that the protected act was any part of the reason for the claimant's treatment.
The 10 factual allegations of race discrimination were either not established on the balance of probabilities, not detrimental, or the claimant failed to prove facts from which the Tribunal could conclude that race was a reason for the treatment. Where comparisons were possible (e.g. with Mr Shah who shared the claimant's Asian ethnicity), race could not explain differential treatment.
Facts
The claimant was a security officer at VMO2 Tannochside site from February 2019 to November 2024. She resigned claiming constructive dismissal, victimisation and race discrimination based on 21 factual allegations spanning from June 2019 to October 2024. These included allegations that managers were unsupportive after a sexual harassment complaint in March 2022 (adjudicated in a previous successful tribunal claim), that alarms were deliberately activated hundreds of times, that she was ignored by supervisors, denied PPE, and that her grievance was not taken seriously. She had previously brought a successful sex discrimination claim in case 8000146/2023 heard in October 2023.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed all claims. The judge found the claimant was not a credible witness, particularly where her evidence was contradicted by CCTV regarding an alleged accident. In contrast, all the respondent's witnesses were found credible and persuasive. Most factual allegations were not established on the balance of probabilities. Where facts were established, the respondent had reasonable and proper cause and the conduct was neither calculated nor likely to breach the trust and confidence term. The claimant failed to prove victimisation or race discrimination.
Practical note
Credibility findings are crucial: where a claimant's evidence is fundamentally contradicted by objective evidence like CCTV and contains speculative assertions unsupported by facts, tribunals will prefer credible employer witnesses and reject claims even where multiple allegations spanning several years are advanced.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001678/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Security Officer
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No