Claimant v Timperley Conservative and Social Club
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant admitted to swearing at a club member, threatening him with violence, and offering to take the argument outside. The tribunal found this was gross misconduct constituting a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the respondent to dismiss summarily without notice.
The claimant alleged a PCP of refusing to investigate sex-related complaints. The tribunal found no such PCP existed. The claimant had not made a formal complaint to management prior to the disciplinary process, and once her allegations were known, the respondent did investigate. The claimant failed to prove the PCP or individual disadvantage.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's factual allegations that a club member made offensive sex-related comments to her. Even if proven, the tribunal concluded the conduct would not have had the required effect on the claimant, given her own conduct and language in the workplace. The dismissal was due to her own gross misconduct, not her reaction to any alleged harassment.
The claimant sought compensation for failure to provide an initial statement of employment particulars under s.38 Employment Act 2002. This claim failed because: (1) all other claims failed, so no award could be made; (2) the respondent had provided the statement before the claim was filed, so was not in breach when proceedings began.
Facts
The claimant was a bar supervisor at a social club who entered into a relationship with her line manager. On 4 March 2023, she became involved in an altercation with a club member over a cashback request. She admitted swearing at him, threatening to 'batter' him, and offering to take the fight outside. She was dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant alleged the member had previously harassed her with sex-related comments, but the tribunal rejected these factual allegations, finding her own witness evidence unreliable and preferring the respondent's witnesses.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant's admitted conduct (swearing at and threatening a customer) was gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The indirect discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no PCP of refusing to investigate sex-related complaints — the respondent investigated once aware. The harassment claim failed because the factual allegations were not proven, and even if proven, would not have had the required effect on the claimant given her own conduct and language.
Practical note
Credibility is critical in harassment cases: a claimant whose own workplace conduct includes foul language, threats of violence, and sharing explicit photos will struggle to establish that alleged verbal harassment violated their dignity or created a hostile environment for them.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2406704/2023
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Bar Supervisor
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep