Claimant v Charles Trent Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found allegations 2a, b, d, f, g and i proven. These involved unwanted sexual comments, being hit on the bottom with a ruler, sexist comments about women not belonging in a 'man's world', comments about appearance and tight jeans, and being told she only got the job because of her looks. The tribunal extended time as it was just and equitable.
Allegations 2a, b, d, f, g and i succeeded as harassment related to sex. These involved gender-based hostile comments and unwanted physical contact. The tribunal found the conduct was related to the claimant's sex and had the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating a hostile environment.
The remaining allegations of sexual harassment (including v, w, x, y, z, aa, ll, mm, nn, oo, pp) were not proven on the facts or did not meet the statutory test for harassment.
The remaining allegations of harassment related to sex were either not proven on the facts (e.g. allegations 2z about ongoing incidents allegedly reported to Neil Joslin but not supported by contemporaneous documents) or did not meet the statutory test.
The tribunal applied the principle that if harassment is established, the allegation is dismissed as direct discrimination. Where harassment was not established, the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's sex was a significant influence on the treatment complained of, particularly regarding the decision not to dismiss Ian Joliffe or the requirement to continue working with him.
The tribunal found that while some allegations succeeded as harassment, the claimant did not prove that the employer's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant withdrew allegations 2c, e, h, j, l, m, n, o, p, s and ff-kk from the constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence that she repeatedly complained to Neil Joslin about ongoing issues after the grievance, finding this inconsistent with contemporaneous documentation.
Having failed to establish constructive dismissal, the wrongful dismissal claim also failed as there was no repudiatory breach of contract proven.
Facts
The claimant was Head of People and Culture at the respondent. She raised a grievance in March 2022 alleging sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct by Ian Joliffe, a senior manager. The allegations included sexist comments about her appearance and women not belonging in a 'man's world', being hit on the bottom with a ruler, forced hugging, and aggressive verbal abuse. Ian Joliffe was given a 24-month final written warning but not dismissed. The claimant resigned in January 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found six specific allegations of sexual harassment and harassment related to sex proven (allegations 2a, b, d, f, g, i) and extended time as just and equitable. However, the tribunal rejected most other allegations, finding they were not proven on the evidence or did not meet the statutory tests. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence that she continued to report ongoing problems to Neil Joslin after the grievance, finding this inconsistent with contemporaneous documentation.
Practical note
Even where serious harassment allegations are proven and time is extended, a constructive dismissal claim will fail if the claimant cannot prove a fundamental breach of contract, particularly where contemporaneous documents contradict claims of ongoing complaints and the claimant continued working for nearly two years after the initial incidents.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400482/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of People and Culture
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor