Claimant v Indigo Pipelines Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no binding contract was formed. Although Ms Scott offered £32,000 verbally, the claimant did not accept it, both parties anticipated a written contract would be required, there was no agreement on essential terms beyond salary, and no intention to be bound immediately. Language used by claimant referred to 'offer' and 'negotiations' not concluded contract.
Three alleged protected acts were examined. First (conversation with Ms Kinsman 15 & 29 August): tribunal found no race discrimination allegations were made, only complaints about salary unfairness. Second (conversation with Ms Thompson 29 August): claimant conceded no mention of race or discrimination. Third (conversation with Ms Critchley 30 August): this was a protected act as claimant explicitly mentioned being 'a woman of colour' and discrimination. However, detriments relied upon either predated this act or had no causal link to it. Claim failed on causation.
Facts
Claimant was engaged as agency worker by respondent from March 2024 as administrator, later trained as asset engagement officer. Verbal discussions took place about permanent role at £32,000 salary which claimant understood was offered but then reduced to £27,500. Following Town Hall meeting on 29 August 2024, claimant complained to HR about salary reduction and contract handling. Her engagement was terminated on 30 August 2024 due to reduced workload from new systems. On call with HR adviser Ms Critchley later that day, claimant mentioned being 'woman of colour' and discrimination in context of equal pay comparison.
Decision
Both claims dismissed. No binding employment contract formed as no acceptance of verbal offer, both parties anticipated written contract required, insufficient agreement on essential terms beyond salary, and no intention to be immediately bound. Victimisation claim failed as first two alleged protected acts did not constitute sufficiently clear allegations of race discrimination, and detriments relating to third protected act (which was established) either predated it or had no causal link to it.
Practical note
A verbal salary discussion does not create a binding employment contract where parties expect a written document to follow and have not agreed essential terms, and complaints about unfair treatment without reference to protected characteristics cannot constitute protected acts under s.27 Equality Act even if the complainant is from an ethnic minority.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001626/2024
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Administrator / Asset Engagement Officer
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No