Claimant v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Tribunal found the three allegations (pay scale issue, backdating of pay, and restriction on overtime) either were not factually correct or did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The restriction on overtime between October 2022 and January 2023 had a reasonable and proper cause (supportive measure following trauma) and was not calculated to destroy trust and confidence. Claimant was not dismissed.

Three allegations concerning the investigation report findings: (a) conversation about faith and LGBT deemed inappropriate, (b) recommendation for EDI training, and (c) use of 'blood of Jesus' deemed inappropriate. Tribunal found none amounted to less favourable treatment because of religion. The findings were made because of the outcome of the workplace investigation, not the claimant's religion. Burden of proof did not shift.

Three allegations: (a) failure to act on mini cab driver incident, (b) failure to act on police officer abuse, and (c) collective grievance raised against claimant. Tribunal found respondent did act on the first two complaints (CCTV reviewed, Inspector Fields consulted). Those claims were also out of time. The collective grievance was capable of less favourable treatment but was because of the claimant's conduct at work, not her sex. Burden of proof did not shift.

Allegation that claimant was prevented from working overtime between June 2022 and January 2023 because of her lower back condition. Tribunal found the restriction (October 2022-January 2023) was because claimant had returned from stress-related sick leave (not related to disability), and respondent wanted to protect rest days following occupational health advice. The reason was not the disability. Comparator Mr. Burroughs was not in the same circumstances. Claim also out of time.

Single allegation: failure to support claimant when police ignored and verbally assaulted her in August 2022. Tribunal found as a matter of fact that respondent did intervene (Mr. Thurlow spoke to Inspector Fields). Therefore no unwanted conduct occurred. Even if it had, it was not related to sex. Claim also out of time with no just and equitable extension sought.

Claimant alleged wages were outstanding between August 2021 and February 2022. Tribunal found claimant was provided with backdated 2021 pay award in March 2022. No unlawful deduction occurred. Claim also presented outside statutory time limit with no evidence it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.

Claim related to alleged failure to pay correct wages between August 2021 and February 2022. Tribunal found claimant received backdated pay in March 2022 so no breach of contract occurred. Claim also out of time.