Unfair dismissal cases employees won

Claim not well-founded

The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to harassment and sexual harassment by a colleague, the grievance process revealed repudiatory breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the British Council was liable for the discriminatory and harassing conduct. The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were upheld on their merits.

Claim not well-founded

The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded by consent and upheld two race harassment allegations (6.2 and 6.3) after extending time as just and equitable, but dismissed the direct race discrimination, disability discrimination, and victimisation claims on their merits.

The tribunal found by majority that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, having rejected the respondent's account of the facts and accepted the claimant's evidence on the disputed conversations and the true reason for dismissal.

Time-limit issue

Some complaints were struck out because they related to events in March-September 2023 and were brought more than three months after those events, outside the statutory time limit under section 123 Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend the time limit. The remaining complaints either fall within the time limit or form part of a continuing course of conduct extending to October 2024.

Qualifying-period issue

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have two years of qualifying employment with the respondent, which is a statutory requirement for unfair dismissal claims. The other complaints regarding unpaid wages and holiday pay succeeded on their merits.

Time-limit issue

The unfair dismissal claim was filed outside the statutory time limit and was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter despite it being reasonably practicable to do so. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim relating to the attendance policy was also out of time, and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit for that specific complaint.

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair and awarded the claimant a basic award of £3,500 plus compensation for past financial losses of £60,000, totalling £63,500.

The claimant succeeded in establishing claims of victimisation and automatically unfair dismissal under the Equality Act 2010 and relevant employment legislation. The tribunal awarded compensation for injury to feelings with a 25% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on discipline and grievance procedures.

Claim not well-founded

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation for unfair dismissal, but dismissed the separate claim of race discrimination on its merits.

Case-specific reason

The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, allowing the tribunal to proceed under Rule 21 and make determinations on the claimant's claims. The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorized wage deductions and dismissed the claimant unfairly, with remedy to be determined separately.

The Employment Judge exercised his discretion wrongly in relation to case management applications by imposing conditions not argued by the Respondent, rejecting amendments on grounds not advanced by either party, and rejecting a request for further information on a basis not argued by the Respondents, which cumulatively amounted to apparent bias.

Case-specific reason

The claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from earnings, of holiday pay and compensation for failure to have been issued with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment are all upheld.