REWARD
discriminated against when she was asked the age of her children and then had her job offer withdrawn. The claimant applied for a position with the respondent and attended two interviews, following which she was offered a job. The contract of employment was then drafted and signed by both parties. Around a week before the claimant was due to start, she attended an online meeting. At the start, the senior human resources (HR) manager introduced the claimant to the general manager of overseas business department and said that the claimant would need to finish the meeting on time to attend to her children. The senior HR manager then left the call. The claimant was asked about her work experience, the size of the projects she had previously worked on and which clients she had worked with in the past. Towards the end of the meeting, the claimant was asked: “How old are your children?” The claimant explained that her eldest child was four years old, and her other child was one. Six days after this meeting, the claimant was told that the job offer was withdrawn and was paid one week’s notice. It was the respondent’s position that the company’s head office introduced a freeze on headcount, meaning it could not proceed with the claimant’s employment. The claimant brought a claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of sex. She argued that she had been treated less favourably because the signed contract of employment was withdrawn and because she was asked the age of her children during the meeting. The respondent argued that the question about the age of the claimant’s children was asked in the context of a ‘get to know you’ meeting, as a courtesy and to build rapport. The claimant, however, argued that it was asked out of the blue and had no relevance to anything else discussed in the meeting. The ET held that it was more likely than not that the general manager of overseas business department gave the instruction to withdraw the contract of employment from the claimant after their conversation about the age of her children. The ET found that there were, therefore, sufficient facts to conclude
that the claimant’s sex was the reason the signed contract of employment was withdrawn and that it amounted to a detriment under the Equality Act 2010. The ET also held that asking the claimant the age of her children was another act of direct discrimination. It held that it was more likely than not the claimant was asked this question because she was a woman and that the same question wouldn’t have been asked out of the blue of a man. The ET, therefore, found that the claimant was treated less favourably because of her sex when the job offer was withdrawn and when she was asked about the age of her children. Both complaints of direct sex discrimination were well founded and succeeded. The claimant was awarded £91,597.82. “The claimant brought a claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of sex. She argued that she had been treated less favourably because the signed contract of employment was withdrawn and because she was asked the age of her children during the meeting” Employee wins constructive unfair dismissal claim after employer failed to deal with grievance The ET, in the case of K Hope v WKCIC t/a Capital City College Group, had to consider whether a failure to deal with a grievance amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant reported various problems to the respondent, including a failure to provide personal protective equipment that had been requested and a failure to resolve issues with the workshop where they worked, which meant it repeatedly flooded. After the claimant had raised concerns for about three years, he met
with a technician face to face about the issues. A few days after this meeting the claimant was informed that the technician had raised a grievance about him. The claimant then raised a formal grievance about the situation. However, the respondent didn’t take any action in relation to the claimant’s grievance, so the claimant reminded the respondent that it hadn’t yet been discussed. About six months later the grievance had still not been dealt with, so the claimant lodged a second grievance. The claimant then received a grievance report but raised concern because it contained an error. He asked if voluntary redundancy was an option but then subsequently resigned with notice after another flood in the workshop. The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal. He argued there had been a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence, alleging that the flood in the workshop was the last straw which resulted in his resignation. The ET acknowledged that the respondent had made efforts to seek the necessary funding required to stop the leaks that caused the flooding. However, the ET found that the respondent had failed to appropriately deal with the claimant’s grievance. The claimant was invited to attend two interviews, but there was no record of them showing that he was asked about his concerns. While a grievance report was provided to the claimant it didn’t go into any detail about the claimant’s concerns because it focused on the grievance raised by the technician, not the claimant’s grievance. Consequently, the ET found that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant’s grievance because it wasn’t investigated, and the report didn’t make any findings or recommendations about it. The grievance failure was a repudiatory breach and an effective cause of the claimant’s resignation. The claimant won the constructive unfair dismissal claim and was awarded £44,068.33 in compensation. The automatic unfair dismissal claim, however, failed because the claimant didn’t have a reasonable belief that there was danger, and they were provided with support in the steps they took to protect themselves from the flooding. n
37
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 104 | October 2024
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker