“Oh God, this is like couples therapy.”
“48.9 Having decided that we are not prepared to reduce the awards because of Polkey or contributory conduct, we are satisfied that it would not be appropriate to increase or reduce the awards because of a breach of the ACAS Code of Practice. It is fair for Mr Lassey to point out that this is not a case where no process was followed at all. 48.10 The Claimants were invited to attended suspension meetings when the allegations were put to them and an investigation was conducted externally into those matters. 48.11 We are also satisfied that an uplift in awards would be excessive given the broad degree of compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice in this case. 48.12 So far as the grievances are concerned, we are satisfied that the Respondent did follow the ACAS Code of Practice. Shortly after the submission of their grievances, they were invited to and attended grievance meetings with external HR consultants. Following those grievance meetings, further investigations were conducted before compiling reports. The Claimants were then provided with outcomes to their grievances and provided with rights of appeal, which they exercised. There were then further appeal meetings, and they were given an outcome in respect of that. 48.13 We are not satisfied in this case that there is any breach of the ACAS Code of Practice in respect of those grievances and no uplift would be appropriate.”
“39. But in this case it was an undisputed fact that the claimant had not looked or applied for any other jobs at all throughout the period from the date when she was dismissed up to the remedy hearing. The respondent was entitled to assert, and the tribunal to proceed, as it plainly did, on the basis, that that failure on her part amounted to a failure to mitigate her loss, because it was unreasonable for her not to look for, or apply for any jobs at all, unless the tribunal accepted that there was an explanation for that, of a kind that meant that it was, after all, not unreasonable. That is not a reversal of the burden of proof. Had it not been admitted, the respondent would have had to make good that there had been a failure to do something which was in principle unreasonable (in this case, the failure to apply for any jobs at all from the date of dismissal to the date of the remedy hearing); but it was able to make that good in this case, because it was not in dispute, and was admitted. 40. Further, in such a case, the practical reality is that the explanation for such a failure is likely to have to come from the claimant, who will know why she failed to take that step. To look at the matter another way, the fact of her failure to look or apply for any jobs at all meant that the respondent had discharged the burden initially on it. In substance, what the tribunal then had to decide was whether, in light of the explanations put forward by the claimant and whatever findings of fact it made about them, her failure to apply for jobs was an unreasonable failure to mitigate or not.”
“B states that she is suffering with severe depression, anxiety and PTSD. The PTSD arises from sexual abuse which she suffered as a child.”