Cases2304293/2022

Claimant v Leightons Limited

5 March 2025Before Employment Judge L WilsonLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was a serious and irreconcilable breakdown in the employment relationship, constituting some other substantial reason. The tribunal found the respondent conducted a thorough independent investigation into the claimant's grievance, which was found to be vexatious. The process was fair, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

The tribunal did not find that the alleged discriminatory comments were made, save for one comment about a former employer preferring to employ a white person. This comment was made in a context criticising the employer's bigotry, not less favourable treatment. The claimant failed to discharge her burden of proof that any treatment was because of her race.

Harassment(race)failed

The tribunal found that the only comment established to have been made was not unwanted conduct related to the claimant's race, given the context in which it was said. The claimant failed to establish the conduct had the statutory purpose or effect, and objectively it was not reasonable for it to have that effect.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The respondent conceded during the hearing that the claimant was only paid one month's notice pay when her contractual entitlement was 12 weeks. The outstanding notice pay has been paid to the claimant.

Facts

The claimant was an optical and hearing care assistant employed from June 2018 until dismissal in October 2022. Following an incident on 9 September 2022, she raised a grievance against her line manager Mr Murdoch alleging bullying, harassment and racially offensive remarks. An independent investigation found no corroboration of her allegations. The claimant was dismissed on grounds of raising a vexatious grievance and irreconcilable breakdown in the employment relationship. The claimant's son had also attended the workplace and made threats towards Mr Murdoch.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and harassment. The tribunal found the respondent had a substantial reason for dismissal (breakdown of relationship), conducted a fair investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal did not find the alleged discriminatory comments were made, save one which was said in a non-discriminatory context. The breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded as the respondent conceded and paid the shortfall.

Practical note

A vexatious grievance combined with an irreconcilable breakdown in the employment relationship can constitute some other substantial reason justifying dismissal, provided a fair process and reasonable investigation are conducted.

Legal authorities cited

Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1913Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] ICR 120Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Field v Pye & Co [2022] EAT 68

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95ERA 1996 s.94EqA 2010 s.136EqA 2010 s.26EqA 2010 s.13ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
2304293/2022
Decision date
5 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Optical and hearing care assistant
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No