University of Salford

Case Summary

The Employment Judge dismissed the claim of post-employment victimisation as the Respondent was not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr. Heyes, who met with the Claimant outside work hours and did not act in the course of his employment.

The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim because the respondent could not be held vicariously liable for Mr. Heyes's actions, as he met with the claimant outside work hours and was not acting in the course of his employment.

• •vicarious liability of the Respondent for the actions of Mr. Heyes
• •jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s claim based on the ACAS EC Certificate provided

Case No. 2402559/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms A Saffer Respondent: University of Salford HELD AT: Manchester (via CVP, in public) ON: 5 th April 2024 BEFORE: Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondent: In Person Mr Mitchell (Solicitor) PRELIMINARY HEARING RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant was entitled to rely upon EC Certificate R179149/22/81 in respect of claim number 2402559/2023. 2. Mr Heyes was not acting in the course of his employment on the 12 th November 2022. The Respondent was not vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Heyes. The claim of post-employment victimisation is not well founded and is dismissed. Case No. 2402559/2023 REASONS Introduction 1. This is my Reserved Judgment following the Public Preliminary Hearing that took place on the 5 th April 2024. 2. The Claimant is Ms. Saffer. The Respondent is her former employer, the University of Salford. She was previously employed by the Respondent as a Customer Service Manager within the library of the University. 3. The Claimant has submitted two claims to the Employment Tribunal. In July 2023 it was ordered that the two claims would be separated and not heard together. This Judgment relates to the second claim, . 4. This second claim relates solely to events that occurred post the Claimant’s period of employment with the Respondent. 5. The issues for determination before me today were as follows: a. Whether the Respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of Mr. Heyes, including whether what is alleged occurred in the course of employment. b. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s claim based on the ACAS EC Certificate provided. Procedural Matters 6. The hearing took place by way of CVP. 7. It had been ordered that this hearing be listed for three hours. Due to what I assume were listing …