Claimant v OCS Food Co Ltd

Tribunal found dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. Investigation not reasonable: respondent failed to identify precise GDPR breach or explore claimant's assertion she had raised concerns repeatedly with no action. No reasonable grounds to believe claimant's concerns had been addressed via grievance process or that she knew of other channels. No reasonable grounds to believe claimant would breach GDPR again. Sanction of dismissal outside band of reasonable responses given clean record, limited support, and context.

Tribunal satisfied that reason for dismissal was the decision-makers' genuine belief claimant breached GDPR, not the protected disclosures. Although one disciplinary allegation (bringing company into disrepute) could relate to disclosure, this was not the reason for dismissal. The reason or principal reason for dismissal was not that claimant made a protected disclosure.

Claimant failed to discharge initial burden of proof on all allegations relating to sex discrimination. No good evidence from which tribunal could infer less favourable treatment because of sex or that hypothetical comparator would be treated more favourably. Where allegations upheld factually (e.g. unpaid chef manager duties), no evidence treatment was because of sex.

Claimant failed to discharge initial burden of proof on all race discrimination allegations. Most factual allegations not upheld. Where upheld (e.g. unpaid chef manager duties), no good evidence treatment was because of race. No evidence hypothetical comparator of different race would be treated more favourably.

Claimant failed to discharge initial burden of proof on all age discrimination allegations. Where factual allegations upheld (e.g. unpaid chef manager work), no evidence treatment was because of age. No evidence hypothetical comparator of different age would be treated more favourably.

Where unwanted conduct found (e.g. staffing shortages), no evidence it was related to sex. Most factual allegations underlying harassment claims not upheld. No evidence conduct had the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating intimidating environment because of sex.

Where unwanted conduct found, no evidence it was related to race. Most factual allegations underlying harassment claims not upheld. No evidence conduct had purpose or effect of violating dignity because of race.

Where unwanted conduct found, no evidence it was related to age. Most factual allegations not upheld. No evidence conduct had purpose or effect of violating dignity because of age.