Claimant v The Soho Sandwich Company Limited

Tribunal found the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through: failing to investigate age-related harassment properly, furloughing the claimant longer than others, failing to provide a pay rise, undermining her seniority, failing to provide contractual bank holiday pay and days in lieu, and failing to address her complaints. The claimant resigned in response and did not affirm the contract.

Tribunal upheld claims that Mr Khalid told Alexandru Bucur to 'leave them alone, they are young' on 3 May 2022, and that Mr Silverston said on 8 June 2022 that the claimant did not need motivation but younger people did. These were less favourable treatment because of age. Tribunal rejected the claim that failing to investigate statements containing age-related comments was direct discrimination, as there was evidence the comments had been investigated.

Tribunal found six allegations of harassment related to age were upheld: Mr Sayed referring to claimant as 'like my grandmother' on 27 April; singing 'Dadi' (grandmother in Bengali) on 28 April; Mr Khalid's comment about them being young on 3 May; age-related statements read out on 6 May; Mr Khalid asking what was important to the claimant 'at this age' on 6 May; and Mr Silverston's comment on 8 June about motivating younger people. All were unwanted conduct related to age with the effect of humiliating the claimant, which was reasonable.

Tribunal found the claimant did a protected act by raising age discrimination with Mr Khalid on 6 May 2022. Three victimisation claims succeeded: failure to address pay query after protected act; Mr Silverston telling claimant not to mention discrimination on 8 June; and a £264.42 deduction made in June payslip. Eight other victimisation allegations failed as they either pre-dated the protected act, were not detriments, or were not because of the protected act.

Tribunal upheld unauthorised deductions of £440.70 for five days unpaid work from 21-26 May 2022, and £264.42 recorded as 'deduction' in June payslip. Tribunal rejected the claim for 64 unpaid bank holidays over 14 years as insufficient evidence was provided to show which specific bank holidays had not been paid double time.

Tribunal found the respondent breached s13A Working Time Regulations by effectively refusing four days additional leave per year from 2008-2020, but could only award four days from 2020 as s13A does not allow carry forward. Tribunal also found respondent failed to pay for 3.1 days accrued but untaken leave on termination (claimant entitled to 11.7 days for five months worked, not 8.6 days paid).

Tribunal found breach of contract in refusing eight days holiday per annum from 2009-2020 (claimant contractually entitled to 32 days, only received 24), and failure to pay 1.6 days accrued holiday on termination. Claim for breach of grievance procedure failed as it was not contractual. Claim for payment in lieu of bank holidays failed as contract provided for days in lieu, not payment.