Miss G Okwu v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: 2211437/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2211437/2023

Between

Miss G OkwuClaimant

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation TrustRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Joffe

Mr S Nicholls (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 12 August 2024

JUDGMENT

[1]The complaint s of direct race discrimination are not well founded and are dismissed.

[2]The complaint s of harassment related to race are not well founded and are dismissed.

[3]The complaint s of victimisation are not well founded and are dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The issues in the claims were agreed at a case management The issues in the claims were agreed at a case management preliminarypreliminary hearing in front of hearing in front of EmploymentEmployment Judge Adkin on Judge Adkin on 14 September 2023.14 September 2023.

[2]They were as follows: They were as follows: Race Race 1. The Claimant is a black person of African origin. 1. The Claimant is a black person of African origin. Direct discrimination (s.13 EqA 2010) Direct discrimination (s.13 EqA 2010) –– 2. What are the facts in relation to the following allegations: 2. What are the facts in relation to the following allegations:a. Sandra Marinou not allocating new work to the Claimant for almost 2 months after a. Sandra Marinou not allocating new work to the Claimant for almost 2 months after the Claimant started employment (later in December 2019 or Januathe Claimant started employment (later in December 2019 or January 2020); ry 2020);

b. Not having a monthly supervision (the Claimant asserts her last supervision was b. Not having a monthly supervision (the Claimant asserts her last supervision was 27.10.2022) (between October 2022 27.10.2022) (between October 2022 –– July 2023); July 2023);

c. On 24.04.2023, C was not paid her salary, nobody else in the teams had the same c. On 24.04.2023, C was not paid her salary, nobody else in the teams had the same issue (same thing happenedissue (same thing happened in Summer of 2022, which relies as background to in Summer of 2022, which relies as background to demonstrate that this was because of herdemonstrate that this was because of her race); race);

d. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant d. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very wwicked and they throw poo at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported icked and they throw poo at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this was becauswas because of race because the previous conversation had related to serious work e of race because the previous conversation had related to serious work matters and this comment came out of nowhere. matters and this comment came out of nowhere.

e. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penf e. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfoold demanded the Claimant’s ld demanded the Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without heOccupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge. r knowledge.

f. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact f. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022.

g. Approximately, between N g. Approximately, between November 2022 and 1 April 2023, Tim Kent called me to ovember 2022 and 1 April 2023, Tim Kent called me to ask 'what my role would be in the team going forward' and started the meeting by ask 'what my role would be in the team going forward' and started the meeting by saying 'look, I want to tell you about myself. I was adopted. I am a mixture of saying 'look, I want to tell you about myself. I was adopted. I am a mixture of Lebanese and [another race]” [The ClaimantLebanese and [another race]” [The Claimant cannot recall but it may have been cannot recall but it may have been white, white British or white other.] “I started working with the adoption and fostering white, white British or white other.] “I started working with the adoption and fostering department at Hackney Council but had to leave because it was too close to home”. department at Hackney Council but had to leave because it was too close to home”. C alleges that Tim Kent was suggesting that C wasC alleges that Tim Kent was suggesting that C was a former terrorist and she can a former terrorist and she can see herself in service users. see herself in service users.

[3]If disputed, did the Claimant reasonably see the treatment as a detriment? 3. If disputed, did the Claimant reasonably see the treatment as a detriment?

[4]If so, has the Claimant proven facts from which the ET could conclude that in any 4. If so, has the Claimant proven facts from which the ET could conclude that in any of those respects the claiof those respects the claimant was treated less favourably than someone in the mant was treated less favourably than someone in the same material circumstances not of the same race was or would have been treated?same material circumstances not of the same race was or would have been treated? Case Number: 2211437/2023 3

[5]Claimant confirmed that she is relying upon actual comparators, being all other 5. Claimant confirmed that she is relying upon actual comparators, being all other team members within The Returning Familteam members within The Returning Families Unit whose race is 'White' or 'White ies Unit whose race is 'White' or 'White Other'.Other'.

[6]If so, has the Claimant also proven facts from which the ET could conclude that 6. If so, has the Claimant also proven facts from which the ET could conclude that the less favourable treatment was because of race? the less favourable treatment was because of race?

[7]If so, has the R shown that there was no less favourable treatment 7. If so, has the R shown that there was no less favourable treatment because of because of race? race? Harassment (s.26 Equality Act 2010) Harassment (s.26 Equality Act 2010)

[8]Did the R engage in unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic of 8. Did the R engage in unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic of race? race?

[9]The unwanted conduct related to race complained of is: 9. The unwanted conduct related to race complained of is:a. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant a. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very wicked and they throw poo at people" and evwicked and they throw poo at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported eryone laughed. (C states she reported this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this was because of race because the previous conversatiowas because of race because the previous conversation had related to serious work n had related to serious work matters and this comment came out of nowhere. matters and this comment came out of nowhere.

b. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane b. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane PenfoldPenfold demanded the Claimant’s demanded the Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge. Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge.

c. R took 2 years to arrang c. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact e for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022.

[10]If so, did such conduct have the purpose or effect of 10. If so, did such conduct have the purpose or effect of violating the C’s dignity or violating the C’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensivecreating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for environment for the C? C to particularise if she asserts that the conduct hadthe C? C to particularise if she asserts that the conduct had the purpose or effect. the purpose or effect.

[11]In deciding whether the unwanted conduct has such 11. In deciding whether the unwanted conduct has such effect (in the paragraph effect (in the paragraph above), the ET will have regard to: above), the ET will have regard to: i.the perception of the C; i.the perception of the C; ii.the other circumstances of the case; ii.the other circumstances of the case; iii. whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. iii. whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Victimisation (s.27 Equality Act 2010) Victimisation (s.27 Equality Act 2010)

[12]The 12. The Protected Acts that the Claimant relies upon are the grievances on 18 March Protected Acts that the Claimant relies upon are the grievances on 18 March 2021, 2 November 2022, 3 November 2022 and in May 2023. 2021, 2 November 2022, 3 November 2022 and in May 2023.

[13]Are these protected acts (i.e. do they raise allegations of discrimination, 13. Are these protected acts (i.e. do they raise allegations of discrimination, harassment, etc) harassment, etc)

[14]Did the R subject 14. Did the R subject the Claimant to any detriment because of the Protected Act? the Claimant to any detriment because of the Protected Act? Case Number: 2211437/2023 4

[15]The detriments that the Claimant asserts are: 15. The detriments that the Claimant asserts are:a. Any reference to racism was removed from the description of C’s grievance dated a. Any reference to racism was removed from the description of C’s grievance dated 18 March 2021; 18 March 2021;

b. 02.02.2023 the Claimant submitted a b. 02.02.2023 the Claimant submitted a Subject Access Request thatSubject Access Request that was not was not responded to at the time of presenting the ET1 Claim Form; responded to at the time of presenting the ET1 Claim Form;

c. On 05.05.2023 the Claimant had a meeting with Hulya Karabulut and Tim Kent c. On 05.05.2023 the Claimant had a meeting with Hulya Karabulut and Tim Kent (with Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR) as an observer) to answer “trumped (with Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR) as an observer) to answer “trumped up up charges”; charges”;

d. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the Claimant’s d. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge. Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge.

e. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contac e. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact t with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022.

f. Failure to deal with grievances submitted on 18 March 2021,2 November 2022 f. Failure to deal with grievances submitted on 18 March 2021,2 November 2022 and 3 November 2022 and in May 2023. and 3 November 2022 and in May 2023.

g. Hulya Karabulut and Sandra Marinou deliberately failed to complete change forms g. Hulya Karabulut and Sandra Marinou deliberately failed to complete change forms and this resulted in discrepancies in C’s pay in July 2022 and this resulted in discrepancies in C’s pay in July 2022 -- September 2022. September 2022. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction -- Time limit (s.123 Equality Act 2010) Time limit (s.123 Equality Act 2010)

[16]Are the C’s claims of race discri 16. Are the C’s claims of race discrimination in time such that the ET has jurisdiction mination in time such that the ET has jurisdiction to consider any of them? This will involve considering: to consider any of them? This will involve considering:a. Were these claims presented within three months of the acts complained of in a. Were these claims presented within three months of the acts complained of in accordance with section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 (taking into accoaccordance with section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 (taking into account the EC unt the EC period)? period)?

b. If any act took place more than three months less one day of the date on which b. If any act took place more than three months less one day of the date on which the claim was presented to the Tribunal, does it form part of conduct extending over the claim was presented to the Tribunal, does it form part of conduct extending over a period within the meaning of section 123(3) Equality Act 2010? a period within the meaning of section 123(3) Equality Act 2010?

c. If the ET finds that any act complained of was not part of conduct extending over a c. If the ET finds that any act complained of was not part of conduct extending over a period (and was brought outside the primary limitation period), is it just and equitable period (and was brought outside the primary limitation period), is it just and equitable for the ET to exercise its discretion and extend the time limit for submissionfor the ET to exercise its discretion and extend the time limit for submission of those of those claims, in accordance with section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010?claims, in accordance with section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010? Findings of fact Findings of fact The he The hearingaring 3. 3. We had an electronic bWe had an electronic bundleundle of 1526 pages. We read those documents we of 1526 pages. We read those documents we were taken towere taken to.. Case Number: 2211437/2023 5 4. 4. The claimant pThe claimant producedroduced a witness statement and gave a witness statement and gave live live evidence on her evidence on her own behalfown behalf.. 5. 5. We received witnessWe received witness statements and hstatements and heaearrd from the following witnesses for d from the following witnesses for the respondentthe respondent:: Ms S Marinou, Ms S Marinou, clinical service managclinical service managerer;; Ms J Penfold Ms J Penfold,, CAMHS pCAMHS practitionerractitioner;; Dr M Shaw, Dr M Shaw, consultant child psychiatristconsultant child psychiatrist;; Ms H Karabulut Ms H Karabulut, , adolescentadolescent psychopsychotherapisttherapist;; Mr D Aj Mr D Ajiibola, bola, associate director ofassociate director of peoplepeople;; Ms K Merchant Ms K Merchant,, head of peoplehead of people;; Mr T Kent, director of complex mental Mr T Kent, director of complex mental healthhealth.. Procedural matters Procedural matters 6. 6. The claimantThe claimant raised concerns thatraised concerns that documentsdocuments she had she had discloseddisclosed had not been had not been included in the bundle. A difficulty was that she said included in the bundle. A difficulty was that she said sheshe had sent the only had sent the only copy of copy of thosethose documents to the documents to the respondentrespondent by way of disclosure. by way of disclosure. The The respondentrespondent arranged to have copies of the arranged to have copies of the claimant’sclaimant’s disclosure sent tdisclosure sent to her in o her in hard copy fhard copy foor the r the secondsecond day of the hearing. The claimant told us that these day of the hearing. The claimant told us that these were were notnot all of heall of her documentsr documents bbutut she she was nwas notot able to able to identifyidentify what was what was missing. missing. 7. 7. On a number of occasions the On a number of occasions the TTribunal ribunal explainedexplained toto the claimant that if she the claimant that if she looked for documents she considered were missing, for example in her work looked for documents she considered were missing, for example in her work emails, these would be admitted late emails, these would be admitted late iif it was appropriate to do sof it was appropriate to do so.. The The claimant ultimately did nclaimant ultimately did notot produce aproduce anny more documentsy more documents.. Facts Facts 8. 8. On 19 November 2019,On 19 November 2019, the claimant started employment the claimant started employment with the respondent with the respondent asas aa ffamily amily ssupport upport wworkerorker in the Returning Families Unitin the Returning Families Unit; this was a ; this was a partpart time time rolerole. She has a. She has a background as a qualified social worker but told the Tribunal background as a qualified social worker but told the Tribunal sshhe hae hadd lost her lost her registrationregistration.. She was over qualified for the She was over qualified for the family support family support worker worker rolerole.. 9. 9. The Returning Families Unit The Returning Families Unit provided children and families provided children and families returningreturning ffrorom m Syria Syria who have had what Mrwho have had what Mr Kent described as an ‘alleged involvement with Kent described as an ‘alleged involvement with alleged terrorism’ alleged terrorism’ with with clinical clinical interventionintervention and a support network and a support network to assist to assist their return to the UK.their return to the UK. The Unit works with local authorities and the network The Unit works with local authorities and the network around the around the returnees. returnees. It is commissioned by the HomeIt is commissioned by the Home Office to do this work. Office to do this work. Case Number: 2211437/2023 6 10. 10. The family support worker The family support worker role involved supportingrole involved supporting social integration of social integration of families on their returnfamilies on their return; that included s; that included support upport iin relation to housing,n relation to housing, finance finance and school applicationsand school applications and pand providingroviding sessionsessionss for parents to enhance for parents to enhance their their understanding ofunderstanding of children’s needs. children’s needs. Family support Family support workersworkers would be would be iinvited to nvited to meetings with local authorities and other agencies wmeetings with local authorities and other agencies whhere ere necessary necessary and and appropriateappropriate.. 11. 11. There was a dispute between the claimant and the respondent aboThere was a dispute between the claimant and the respondent about aspects ut aspects of the role; the claimant said that she was of the role; the claimant said that she was notnot employed to provide practical employed to provide practical support to the support to the returneesreturnees such asuch as support with housing issues. Ultimately s support with housing issues. Ultimately we we did not find this dispute was material to the issues we had to decide.did not find this dispute was material to the issues we had to decide. 12. 12. In In DecemberDecember 2020119,9, shortly after the claimant commenced employment, shortly after the claimant commenced employment, Ms Ms MaMarrinou inou became became the the clinicclinicalal service service managermanager for for the the RRetueturrning ning FFamilies amilies UUnit, nit, alongside another rolealongside another role she was perfshe was performing in the Trustorming in the Trust. . She She becamebecame ffull time ull time iin the Returning Families role a year latern the Returning Families role a year later.. 13. 13. The composition of the The composition of the Returning Families Unit changed over time. Returning Families Unit changed over time. It It generally comprised generally comprised 7 7 –– 88 people, which included a people, which included a consultant consultant child child psychiatristpsychiatrist, , Children and Adolescent Mental Health Children and Adolescent Mental Health ServiceService clinicianclinicians, as, a systemic psychotherapist systemic psychotherapist / senior practitioner/ senior practitioner, a, a family support family support workerworker, an , an administrator and a clinical service manager.administrator and a clinical service manager. SupervisionSupervision was provided to was provided to everyone in the teameveryone in the team, , somesome roles requireroles require moremore than othersthan others. . For non For non clinicalclinical roles: roles: supervisionsupervision takes placetakes place once a month once a month in orderin order to provide general to provide general support not specific to clinical casessupport not specific to clinical cases. . Everyone has group Everyone has group supervisionsupervision once a once a month to discuss clinical cases: month to discuss clinical cases: this is a this is a session guided by session guided by Ms JMs J WWakelyn who akelyn who is is externalexternal to teato teamm and has been pand has been providing roviding supervisionsupervision since 2019since 2019.. 14. 14. One of the claimant’s allegations is that she was not One of the claimant’s allegations is that she was not allocated work for two allocated work for two months after months after she she startedstarted employment.employment. 15. 15. Ms Ms MarinouMarinou’s ’s evidenceevidence waswas that the that the team did nteam did notot have an allocated base at have an allocated base at thatthat point and she was point and she was focusingfocusing on acquiringon acquiring permanent office space and permanent office space and equipment. equipment. She was eShe was ensuringnsuring thatthat team members team members had accounts set had accounts set upup to to access access the respondent’s IT the respondent’s IT systemssystems. It was a

d. It was a difficultifficult time for time for Ms Ms MaMaririnou nou working between two working between two servicesservices and and familiarisingfamiliarising herherself with self with tthe Returning he Returning Families Unit Families Unit serviceservice. . At this point, the mAt this point, the majority of ajority of clinicalclinical staff who had staff who had worked worked onon previous previous casescases hhad leftad left the service.the service. 16. 16. The claimant said that when she joined the service, there was an allocated The claimant said that when she joined the service, there was an allocated base and a fully functioning office but she accepted that as new people joined, base and a fully functioning office but she accepted that as new people joined, the office moved as the room the team was in was not big enough. the office moved as the room the team was in was not big enough.

Facts

[17]Ms Marinou said that the tMs Marinou said that the team was eam was frustrated frustrated aboutabout the the difficultiesdifficulties described described and and the the fact that there was only fact that there was only a a smallsmall case case lload of thoad of threeree casescases, t, twowo of which of which were inactivewere inactive. This resulted in a lack of substantive work for staff. This resulted in a lack of substantive work for staff initiallyinitially. . Dr Dr Shaw also recalled that there was limited work at this point. Shaw also recalled that there was limited work at this point. Ms MarinouMs Marinou said said that she did not recall the claimantthat she did not recall the claimant raising an issue with her about raising an issue with her about the the allocation of workallocation of work.. Case Number: 2211437/2023 7

[18]Ms Ms Marinou Marinou said that the claimantsaid that the claimant was offered was offered induction and training induction and training during during tthhis period and assigned tasks is period and assigned tasks designeddesigned to assist with her woto assist with her worrk k –– includingincluding reviewing relevant reviewing relevant literatureliterature and preparing resources for play and education to and preparing resources for play and education to be used with be used with familiesfamilies..

[19]MsMs Marinou gave some general evidence about how work was allocated in Marinou gave some general evidence about how work was allocated in the team. the team. Work was allocated according to the clinical Work was allocated according to the clinical neeneeds of theds of the particularparticular family and the expertise of the practitioner. family and the expertise of the practitioner. Work allocation was Work allocation was discusseddiscussed in in teamteam meetings. meetings. TThhere wereere were fofour types of work performed by ur types of work performed by the teamthe team::a. a. Individual work including Individual work including assessment and psychotherapy services for assessment and psychotherapy services for childrenchildren and support to parents/carersand support to parents/carers;;

b. b. Child intervention, Child intervention, includingincluding observations;observations;

c. c. Consultations with educational authorities Consultations with educational authorities including observations of including observations of children in the school or nursery setting;children in the school or nursery setting;

d. d. Supporting familiesSupporting families’’ integration integration into local communitiesinto local communities, including , including support for support for housinghousing applications and applications and access to financial support.access to financial support.

[20]The claimant’s The claimant’s evidenceevidence about available work was paabout available work was partlyrtly based on matters based on matters she said had been relayed to her by she said had been relayed to her by Ms C Ms C Fitzsimmons, who appears to have Fitzsimmons, who appears to have been one of the few clinicians who had nbeen one of the few clinicians who had not ot left the serviceleft the service at the point when at the point when the claimant joinedthe claimant joined. The claima. The claimant’s evidence was that Ms Fitzsimmons told nt’s evidence was that Ms Fitzsimmons told her that there were eight families and 16 children being looked after by the her that there were eight families and 16 children being looked after by the service. Ms Marinou’s evidence was that these were the cases which had service. Ms Marinou’s evidence was that these were the cases which had previously been open not those which were active at the time thepreviously been open not those which were active at the time the claimant claimant joined the service. joined the service.

[21]The The claimantclaimant did ndid notot send any email at the time saying she did nsend any email at the time saying she did notot have have enough work or asking for more work. She told the Tribunal that she did nenough work or asking for more work. She told the Tribunal that she did notot thinkthink she would have sent one as she was new in the job. she would have sent one as she was new in the job.

[22]The claimant said that she was not allocated any substantive work until 18 The claimant said that she was not allocated any substantive work until 18 December 2019. It appeared from contemporaneous documentation that the December 2019. It appeared from contemporaneous documentation that the claimant was allocated work with a family some time arouclaimant was allocated work with a family some time around mid December nd mid December 2019.2019. The TB issue The TB issue

[23]In In December 2019December 2019, there was a new, there was a new casecase:: RF0101. RF0101. This was initially This was initially aallocated to a number llocated to a number ofof team team membersmembers including including the claimant.the claimant. The cThe children hildren of the family of the family had TB and one had had TB and one had hepatitishepatitis B. B. They wThey were referred for ere referred for treatment. treatment. The respondent wasThe respondent was toldtold that the childrenthat the children were were nnot infectious to ot infectious to professionals visiting as professionals visiting as they were they were not symptomaticnot symptomatic.. Case Number: 2211437/2023 8

[24]On 8 January 2020, the claimant On 8 January 2020, the claimant raiseraisedd by email to Msby email to Ms Marinou and others, Marinou and others, including her supervisor, Ms Maunder, aincluding her supervisor, Ms Maunder, a concern concern about theabout the children having children having TB TB and and hepatitishepatitis BB aas she was not s she was not immunised against those diseases. immunised against those diseases.

[25]Ms Ms Marinou saMarinou said id in evidence in evidence that the claimant that the claimant agreed it was appropriate to agreed it was appropriate to allocate allocate this this cacase tose to herher supervisorsupervisor Ms Ms Maunder due to unresolved issueMaunder due to unresolved issuess about about the claimantthe claimant’s ’s vaccination statusvaccination status..

[26]Ms Ms Marinou Marinou toldtold the Tribunal thatthe Tribunal that she was she was guidedguided by her by her mmanageranager,, Mr S Mr S BambroughBambrough,, to ensure staffto ensure staff that staff were that staff were checkedchecked bbyy occupational healthoccupational health to to see if see if there was there was any risk of exposureany risk of exposure. . There was a prThere was a processocess forfor staff to book an staff to book an appointment with OH to appointment with OH to undertakeundertake a risk assessmenta risk assessment..

[27]Ms Marinou asked OH to prioritiseMs Marinou asked OH to prioritise the claimant’s appointment as the issue the claimant’s appointment as the issue was affecting her ability to work with the family. was affecting her ability to work with the family. After the claimant had her After the claimant had her appointment, she told Ms Marinou that OH had not given her the testappointment, she told Ms Marinou that OH had not given her the test required required for TB and for TB and had advisedhad advised her to get it fher to get it frorom her GP. The m her GP. The claimaclaimant’snt’s GGP in turn P in turn hadhad said that it was the Trustsaid that it was the Trust’s responsibility to provide the test.’s responsibility to provide the test.

[28]On On 13 February 202013 February 2020, Ms , Ms MarMariinou asknou askeded OH OH by email by email when when the claimant the claimant could could be tested for TBbe tested for TB and whether the service needed to cover the cost of and whether the service needed to cover the cost of the testthe test. . She said that the testShe said that the test hadhad been been outstandingoutstanding for for somesome time and hatime and hadd been been escalatedescalated to the to the clinical director of the clinical director of the TTrustrust..

[29]Confusingly, in the light of subsequent Confusingly, in the light of subsequent events, events, OH told MOH told Mss Marinou that the Marinou that the claimant claimant hadhad been ‘assessedbeen ‘assessed’ ’ forfor TB immunityTB immunity on on 29 January 2020 29 January 2020 and that and that they had they had evidenceevidence ofof vaccinationvaccination. . Ms Ms MarMariinou asknou askeded OHOH to confirm to confirm the the outcome outcome of theof the ‘‘testtest’’ witwith the h the claimant.claimant.

[30]On On 19 February 202019 February 2020, the claimant , the claimant emailemaileded OH saying OH saying that that she was told that she was told that she had nshe had noott been checked for TB immunitybeen checked for TB immunity aandnd that shethat she had been thad been told she old she would need to ask would need to ask her her GP GP about the matterabout the matter. We note that there was clearly a . We note that there was clearly a difference between an ‘assessment’ and actual test for TB immunity, which difference between an ‘assessment’ and actual test for TB immunity, which had not been performed. had not been performed.

[31]It appears that at some point It appears that at some point there was a discussion between the there was a discussion between the claimant claimant and Ms Marinou about the and Ms Marinou about the testing being done ptesting being done privately but Ms Marinou said rivately but Ms Marinou said that would present problems for the that would present problems for the TTrust’rust’ss insurance. insurance.

[32]In March 2020, the first covid lockdown occurred and the claimant’s work, like In March 2020, the first covid lockdown occurred and the claimant’s work, like that of others, that of others, becamebecame entirely remote. entirely remote.

[33]In terms In terms ofof allocation of work allocation of work to the claimanto the claimant over the period of her t over the period of her employmentemployment, Ms , Ms MarinouMarinou said that shesaid that she hhad not ad not been able to be allobeen able to be allocated cated observationobservation work as that took place in work as that took place in a facea face--toto--faceface settingsetting, and the claimant , and the claimant hadhad been working remotely been working remotely due to an ongoing concern about exposure to due to an ongoing concern about exposure to covid. She said that the work the covid. She said that the work the claimantclaimant had been doinghad been doing included:included: Case Number: 2211437/2023 9a. a. Providing a package of support and putting Providing a package of support and putting together a list of resources together a list of resources to support families integration;to support families integration;

b. b. Taking part in a Taking part in a multidisciplinarymultidisciplinary asassessment;sessment;

c. c. Parenting interventionsParenting interventions;;

d. d. Meetings with Meetings with local authorities and other professionals;local authorities and other professionals;

e. e. Contributing to a paper on an intervention she delivered withContributing to a paper on an intervention she delivered with a family a family remotelyremotely..

[34]The claimant’s TB vaccination status understandably became of less The claimant’s TB vaccination status understandably became of less immediate immediate significance once all of the team was working remotely.significance once all of the team was working remotely.

[35]On On 2 April 20202 April 2020,, OH wrOH wroote to te to the claimant the claimant and and Ms Ms Marinou saying that due to Marinou saying that due to the the pandemic, pandemic, therethere were limited Mantoux (TB) were limited Mantoux (TB) clinicsclinics ..They suggestedThey suggested that a that a risk assessment be risk assessment be carriedcarried out and out and that the claimant that the claimant would be would be offeredoffered an an appointment at appointment at the the next available Mantoux clinicnext available Mantoux clinic..

[36]OOn 9 March 2021, the claimant emailedn 9 March 2021, the claimant emailed HR to make a “formal complaint abouHR to make a “formal complaint about t racist treatment” racist treatment” ,,and asking ‘Where do I begin?’. On 18 and asking ‘Where do I begin?’. On 18 March she submitted March she submitted a formal grievance against Ms Marinoua formal grievance against Ms Marinou: ‘Please accept this as a formal : ‘Please accept this as a formal complaint of the racial treatment I have been subjected to by Sandra Marinou complaint of the racial treatment I have been subjected to by Sandra Marinou the office managerthe office manager.’.’ The complaints included The complaints included (but were not limited to) (but were not limited to) complaints about the complaints about the lacklack oof allocation of work for the f allocation of work for the first twofirst two months months of herof her employment, employment, the problem with thethe problem with the TTB testingB testing and complaints about Ms and complaints about Ms MarinouMarinou’’s involvement in the s involvement in the claimant’sclaimant’s work with a particular work with a particular familyfamily. She said . She said that Ms Marinouthat Ms Marinou interrupted or hurried her at team meetings and never interrupted or hurried her at team meetings and never listened to her. listened to her. There was also a complaint There was also a complaint that during a discussion about a that during a discussion about a differendifferent member of staff t member of staff referring to the ‘n word’ at a referring to the ‘n word’ at a meeting, Msmeeting, Ms Marinou Marinou had saidhad said: ‘Gloria, you are not the only ethnic minority in t: ‘Gloria, you are not the only ethnic minority in thhis team.’is team.’

[37]On 24 March 2021, the claimantOn 24 March 2021, the claimant memett with with Ms JMs J Brown to discuss Brown to discuss her her grievance.grievance.

[38]On 7 On 7 AprilApril 2021, the claimant was told that Mr W Fitzmaurice2021, the claimant was told that Mr W Fitzmaurice, operations , operations direct DET, had been direct DET, had been commissioned to investigate her complaintcommissioned to investigate her complaint. . Ms Brown Ms Brown had drafted formal terms of reference. On 16 April 2021, the had drafted formal terms of reference. On 16 April 2021, the claimantclaimant and Mr and Mr Fitzmaurice Fitzmaurice metmet forfor an an investigationinvestigation meeting. meeting. On 29 April 2021, Mr On 29 April 2021, Mr FitzFitzmauricemaurice met witmet withh Ms Maunder. Ms Maunder. On On 30 April 2021, Mr Fitzmaurice had 30 April 2021, Mr Fitzmaurice had investigationinvestigation meetingmeetingss with with MMs s PenfoldPenfold and Ms Baileyand Ms Bailey and on and on 4 May 2021, he 4 May 2021, he met with Dr Shaw.met with Dr Shaw. He met He met withwith Mr Bambrough on Mr Bambrough on 7 May 20217 May 2021 and Ms and Ms FiFitzsimons on 13 May 2021.tzsimons on 13 May 2021.

[39]On On 20 May 202120 May 2021, Ms, Ms Marinou Marinou was interviewed by Mr Fitzwas interviewed by Mr Fitzmauricemaurice and and sent Mr sent Mr FitzFitzmauricemaurice notes on the claimant’s complaints to add to her interview notes. notes on the claimant’s complaints to add to her interview notes. WeWe note that she responded in detail note that she responded in detail to the specific complaints made. to the specific complaints made.

[40]On 21 May 2021, Mr FitzOn 21 May 2021, Mr Fitzmauricemaurice met with another met with another teteamam member, Mr G member, Mr G HarmonHarmon..

[41]We note that the claimant expressed disagreement with the notes We note that the claimant expressed disagreement with the notes of her of her meeting which were sent to her to amemeeting which were sent to her to amend and comment on nd and comment on but but she she declined declined Case Number: 2211437/2023 10 to amend them or to to amend them or to provideprovide a a recordingrecording she said she had she said she had mmade of the ade of the meeting.meeting.

[42]On 20 On 20 May 2021, she wrote:May 2021, she wrote: As I refuse to share the tape, I would ask that my As I refuse to share the tape, I would ask that my initial letter replace this report. If that it is not possible, I am afraid initial letter replace this report. If that it is not possible, I am afraid I will not be party to the whole thing anymore. I have been failed yet again. I will not be party to the whole thing anymore. I have been failed yet again.

[43]In approximatelyIn approximately July 2021July 2021, , MsMs MaunderMaunder started matstarted maternityernity leave and leave and Ms Ms PenfoldPenfold, , a a seniorsenior clinicianclinician inin thethe teamteam was was allocated to be allocated to be the claimantthe claimant’s new ’s new supervisorsupervisor..

[44]Around this time Ms Around this time Ms MarMarinouinou hadhad aa meeting meeting withwith MsMs Penfold aPenfold annd explained d explained about about the TB the TB vaccination issue, that it had been vaccination issue, that it had been escalated escalated and remained and remained unresolvedunresolved. She s. She suggested uggested that Ms that Ms Penfold spePenfold speakak withwith HR to geHR to gett guidance guidance about what types of work about what types of work the claimant the claimant could be allocated based on her OH could be allocated based on her OH assessment.assessment. MsMs Penfold contacted HPenfold contacted HRR and was provided with and was provided with a report a report showing the claimant was cleared for illnesses, she showing the claimant was cleared for illnesses, she believedbelieved including TBincluding TB..

[45]Ms Ms PenfoldPenfold sent this to the claimant on 15 July 2021sent this to the claimant on 15 July 2021,, saying that it appeared saying that it appeared the claimant the claimant had ‘been cleared’had ‘been cleared’ and ‘it seems there is no riskand ‘it seems there is no risk of of catchingcatching TB TB ffrorom this’.m this’.

[46]The claimant replied to Ms Penfold that day saying that she had not The claimant replied to Ms Penfold that day saying that she had not been been checked for TB.checked for TB.

[47]The report we saw entitled The report we saw entitled ‘Medical ‘Medical certificatecertificate of of fitnessfitness to work’ to work’ containedcontained the the claimant’sclaimant’s date date oof f birthbirth and statedand stated ‘Fit for contracted ‘Fit for contracted dutiesduties, no , no adjustmentsadjustments likely to be required’. It was dated likely to be required’. It was dated 24 October 2019 and was clearly a pre24 October 2019 and was clearly a pre--employment check. Ms Penfold told the employment check. Ms Penfold told the TribunalTribunal that she that she had had blood tests had had blood tests and brought and brought health records showing vaccination / childhood illnesses when health records showing vaccination / childhood illnesses when she herself commenced employment. she herself commenced employment. She appears to have read into theShe appears to have read into the very very limited report she received that the claimant was clear for limited report she received that the claimant was clear for various illnessesvarious illnesses..

[48]We could We could well well understand that the claimant would have been annoyed to be understand that the claimant would have been annoyed to be told she was clear for TB when she knew she had ntold she was clear for TB when she knew she had notot been tested. Her been tested. Her complaint to the tribunal was about complaint to the tribunal was about Ms Penfold accessing OH records. Ms Penfold accessing OH records.

[49]The claimant The claimant was asked was asked in evin evidenceidence what was personal about the what was personal about the recordrecord and and she said she said iit was her date of t was her date of birthbirth; ; sheshe was a very private person and did nwas a very private person and did not ot want Ms Penfold to see thatwant Ms Penfold to see that. She accepted that there was no confidential . She accepted that there was no confidential healthhealth informationinformation in tin thhe record.e record.

[50]She said of Ms Penfold’s action in contacting HR, that She said of Ms Penfold’s action in contacting HR, that when someone when someone explains something explains something to youto you wwhathat happened ahappened and the personnd the person making the enquirymaking the enquiry checkschecks with someone elsewith someone else, it is because they , it is because they do notdo not believe you.believe you. She said She said that shethat she explained three times about explained three times about the the TB jab and then TB jab and then Ms PenfoldMs Penfold went went and checked with HR.and checked with HR. She said that HR did not know more than she did and She said that HR did not know more than she did and that it was ‘that it was ‘maliciousmalicious’ of Ms Penfold to contact HR. ’ of Ms Penfold to contact HR. She said that Ms Marinou She said that Ms Marinou Case Number: 2211437/2023 11 could have clarified the situation for Ms Penfold but that Ms Marinou was could have clarified the situation for Ms Penfold but that Ms Marinou was seeking to get back at the claimant for complainingseeking to get back at the claimant for complaining about her. about her.

[51]Ms Ms Penfold said Penfold said in evidence that in evidence that she did nshe did notot realizerealize there was an issue with there was an issue with herher seeing the records at the time and that she had beenseeing the records at the time and that she had been following following management advice. management advice. She would have eShe would have expected HR to flag it if it was a xpected HR to flag it if it was a problemproblem. Ms . Ms Penfold suggestedPenfold suggested that that the claimantthe claimant have another OH have another OH appointmentappointment but but the claimant initially the claimant initially said said that that she had lost she had lost confidenceconfidence iin OHn OH..

[52]TheThe claimant subsequentlyclaimant subsequently did attend an appointment bdid attend an appointment buut t therethere waswas no no oneone there when she arrivedthere when she arrived. The situation was undoubtedly frustrating for the . The situation was undoubtedly frustrating for the claimant. claimant.

[53]OOnn 21 July 202121 July 2021,, after some further correspondence with the claimant, after some further correspondence with the claimant, Ms Ms Penfold emailPenfold emailed Mr ed Mr BambroughBambrough:: they they agreed that agreed that the claimantthe claimant could contact could contact Mr Mr Bambrough directly to try to resolve Bambrough directly to try to resolve situationsituation..

[54]Ms Ms Penfold Penfold told the Tribunal that she told the Tribunal that she felt her attempts tfelt her attempts too help help the claimant had the claimant had made made the claimantthe claimant angryangry. She. She said that shesaid that she found found itit difficult to manage difficult to manage the the claimantclaimant as she was often hostile in her communications. She as she was often hostile in her communications. She felt thefelt the way way the the claimant claimant communicatedcommunicated wwasas not not appropriateappropriate or professional at times.or professional at times.

[55]Ms Penfold said thatMs Penfold said that,, as to as to allocationallocation of work, of work, this was largely done by Ms this was largely done by Ms Marinou but she would discussMarinou but she would discuss the claimathe claimant’s capacity with her. She said that nt’s capacity with her. She said that on a couple on a couple ofof occasions when she asked occasions when she asked ththe e claimantclaimant about getting involved about getting involved with with new work, the claimant said that she had enough on.new work, the claimant said that she had enough on.

[56]On 11 August 2021, the claimant was sent the oOn 11 August 2021, the claimant was sent the outcome of the utcome of the investigationinvestigation into into herher grievancegrievance by Mr C Smith in HR. by Mr C Smith in HR. The The complaintscomplaints were not upheldwere not upheld but but recommendationsrecommendations were made to address were made to address issues such as how best to discuss issues such as how best to discuss issues of diversity and differenceissues of diversity and difference, possible , possible management intervention for Ms management intervention for Ms Marinou and the Marinou and the claimantclaimant (which appeared to (which appeared to bbe some sort of mediation) e some sort of mediation) and and a a request for a request for a firmfirm procedure procedure ffrorom OH m OH to guide staff working with clients with to guide staff working with clients with TB.TB. The detailed report was attached to the emailThe detailed report was attached to the email. . The claimant The claimant responded responded by saying that sheby saying that she had “permanently deleted the investigation report” without had “permanently deleted the investigation report” without reading itreading it as she had already told Mr Smith as she had already told Mr Smith that that she dd not want the outcomeshe dd not want the outcome as she had removed herself fas she had removed herself frorom tm thhe process ‘for my health and sanity’.e process ‘for my health and sanity’.1 1 So far a the TB issue was concerned, the findiings were:So far a the TB issue was concerned, the findiings were:27. From reading the case notes, Ms 27. From reading the case notes, Ms Okwu noted that a child may pose a risk to others of infection to TB. Okwu noted that a child may pose a risk to others of infection to TB. When querying with the Occupational Health service, Ms Okwu was advised it would not be possible to When querying with the Occupational Health service, Ms Okwu was advised it would not be possible to have her own immunity to TB tested, other than by looking for visual evidence of a lhave her own immunity to TB tested, other than by looking for visual evidence of a likely TB jab scar on her ikely TB jab scar on her arm [Appendix D, p52]. At this point, Ms Okwu raised her concerns with her line manager, Ellen Maunder, arm [Appendix D, p52]. At this point, Ms Okwu raised her concerns with her line manager, Ellen Maunder, copying in Ms Marinou on the email [App. B (i)]. copying in Ms Marinou on the email [App. B (i)].

28. In discussion with Ms Okwu, Ms Maunder suggested that Ms Okwu might ma 28. In discussion with Ms Okwu, Ms Maunder suggested that Ms Okwu might make arrangements for an ke arrangements for an immunity test to be carried out privately. This was suggested to Ms Marinou, who advised that a private immunity test to be carried out privately. This was suggested to Ms Marinou, who advised that a private test would not be possible due to the Trust’s insurance. Ms Okwu’s recollection is that this was stated test would not be possible due to the Trust’s insurance. Ms Okwu’s recollection is that this was stated directly by Ms Marinou ddirectly by Ms Marinou during the discussion with Ms Maunder. Ms Marinou recalls raising this question uring the discussion with Ms Maunder. Ms Marinou recalls raising this question with her own line manager, Mr Bambrough [Appendix D, p57]. with her own line manager, Mr Bambrough [Appendix D, p57]. Case Number: 2211437/2023 12

[57]On On 1 1 December 2021December 2021, Ms , Ms Penfold Penfold emailed Ms emailed Ms MarinouMarinou saying that the saying that the claimantclaimant ha said thatha said that she didshe did not want not want to be supervisedto be supervised bbyy Ms Ms Penfold any Penfold any more. more. Ms Ms Marinou wrMarinou wrote to Mrote to Mr BambroughBambrough asking for advice on how to deasking for advice on how to dealal withwith thethe situationsituation.. Mr Bambrough Mr Bambrough in turn in turn sought HR advicesought HR advice

[58]On On 9 December 20219 December 2021, Ms, Ms Penfold Penfold wrwroteote to to Mr Mr Bambrough and Bambrough and Mr Mr CaCavanagh vanagh to sayto say that the claimant hadthat the claimant had been sending been sending inappropriateinappropriate emailsemails toto the the team team and thatand that the claimant had the claimant had hunghung up on her when she tup on her when she trried to discussied to discuss the the emails with heremails with her..

[59]On 10 December 2021On 10 December 2021, there was a meeting between the claimant, Ms , there was a meeting between the claimant, Ms Penfold and Ms MarinouPenfold and Ms Marinou about the issues which had about the issues which had arisenarisen. The . The claimantclaimant raisedraised aa number number ofof complaintscomplaints about about MMs s Penfold and it appeaPenfold and it appearsrs from the from the notes that efforts were made to resolve the issues which had arisen. notes that efforts were made to resolve the issues which had arisen.

[60]On 13 December 2021, Ms Marinou On 13 December 2021, Ms Marinou updated Mr updated Mr CavanaghCavanagh and Mr and Mr BambroughBambrough on the meeting of 10 on the meeting of 10 DecemberDecember 2021 2021 and asked for Mr and asked for Mr Cavanagh’s help in getting the Cavanagh’s help in getting the claimant’sclaimant’s OH assessmeOH assessment nt prioritisedprioritised. .

[61]On 16 December On 16 December 2021, Ms Penfold wrote to Mr Bambrough to 2021, Ms Penfold wrote to Mr Bambrough to give her view give her view of the meeting which had occurred and to share some further emails which of the meeting which had occurred and to share some further emails which had been had been sentsent which which she considered showed ‘how impossible it is to manage she considered showed ‘how impossible it is to manage Gloria’. Gloria’.

[62]On 23 On 23 DecemberDecember 20220211, Mr Bambrough , Mr Bambrough and Mr Cavanagh and Mr Cavanagh met with the met with the claimantclaimant and they and they ddiscussed the problems iscussed the problems withwith OH OH and the claimant’s TB and the claimant’s TB test. test. Mr Cavanagh Mr Cavanagh agreed toagreed to take this up take this up withwith OH OH directlydirectly. . They They arrangedarranged to to meet meet in Janin Januauary 2022 to address issues between the claimant and ry 2022 to address issues between the claimant and her her supervisors. supervisors.

[63]During JanDuring Januauary 2022, Mr ry 2022, Mr CavanaghCavanagh was in contact with the was in contact with the claimantclaimant about about the the TTB tests.B tests. The The claimantclaimant hadhad appointments for the Mantoux test booked.appointments for the Mantoux test booked. By By 1 February 1 February 20222022, she had received her BCG injection as , she had received her BCG injection as it appeared from the it appeared from the tests that tests that she was not immune to TB. she was not immune to TB.29. Ms Okwu states that she felt ‘degraded and dehumanised’ by the management decision that an 29. Ms Okwu states that she felt ‘degraded and dehumanised’ by the management decision that an insurance policy was insurance policy was ‘more important than my life’ [Appendix A, p7]. Ms Marinou attempted to explain to ‘more important than my life’ [Appendix A, p7]. Ms Marinou attempted to explain to Ms Okwu that the Trust has a duty of care to its own staff, and they would not be covered by the Trust’s Ms Okwu that the Trust has a duty of care to its own staff, and they would not be covered by the Trust’s insurance had Ms Okwu attended a private medical appointment and soinsurance had Ms Okwu attended a private medical appointment and something had happened to her mething had happened to her [Appendix D, p52]

30. In her interview, Ms Okwu recalled Ms Marinou asking her for a chronology of what [Appendix D, p52] 30. In her interview, Ms Okwu recalled Ms Marinou asking her for a chronology of what happened with Occupational Health, so that Ms Marinou could try to provide some help. Ms Okwu stated happened with Occupational Health, so that Ms Marinou could try to provide some help. Ms Okwu stated that she provided thisthat she provided this information to Ms Marinou, but ‘nothing happened’ [Appendix B(i), p12]. information to Ms Marinou, but ‘nothing happened’ [Appendix B(i), p12].

31. In her interview and written statement, Ms Marinou was able to provide evidence of attempts she had 31. In her interview and written statement, Ms Marinou was able to provide evidence of attempts she had made to try to resolve the problems, with emails from Ms Marinou to OH and a mmade to try to resolve the problems, with emails from Ms Marinou to OH and a meeting in March 2020 eeting in March 2020 [Appendix B (ix) p39, Appendix D p50[Appendix B (ix) p39, Appendix D p50--52]. On 2nd April 2020, the OH team provided an email to Ms Okwu 52]. On 2nd April 2020, the OH team provided an email to Ms Okwu and Ms Marinou explaining their updated protocols for checking TB immunity during the COVID pandemic and Ms Marinou explaining their updated protocols for checking TB immunity during the COVID pandemic [Appendix D p 52]. [Appendix D p 52]. Case Number: 2211437/2023 13

[64]In April 2022, the In April 2022, the claimantclaimant’s ’s fixedfixed term contract was due term contract was due for renewal. It was for renewal. It was not renewed at the time anot renewed at the time although the claimant’s employment continuedlthough the claimant’s employment continued..

[65]OOnn 2828 April 2022, Ms KarabulutApril 2022, Ms Karabulut joinjoineded the the Returning Families UnitReturning Families Unit. . She saShe saidid that during this period and until early 2023 that during this period and until early 2023 thethe respondent respondent wwasas tendering for tendering for their work and their work and therethere was uncertaintywas uncertainty as to whether they would retain the as to whether they would retain the contractcontract. Initially . Initially the Home Officethe Home Office said that the said that the work would be going work would be going elsewhere. elsewhere. It was nIt was not until Febrot until February 2023 uary 2023 that the Home Office that the Home Office confirmconfirmed ed that thethat the work would stay withwork would stay with the respondent.the respondent. She said that this She said that this meant the meant the work work of the Unit of the Unit was more limited during this periodwas more limited during this period. She said that . She said that the the claimant claimant spokespoke with her about not being happy as she did nwith her about not being happy as she did notot have enough have enough workwork..

[66]In July and August 2022, the claimant was not paid her salary because of the In July and August 2022, the claimant was not paid her salary because of the failure to renew her contract.failure to renew her contract.

[67]In August 2022, MsIn August 2022, Ms Karabulut became interim service manager when Ms Karabulut became interim service manager when Ms Marinou went on maternity leave. Marinou went on maternity leave.

[68]On On 25 August 202225 August 2022, the claimant wrote to Ms , the claimant wrote to Ms KarabulutKarabulut about about lacklack ooff workwork, , making an allegation that Ms Marinou had making an allegation that Ms Marinou had deliberatelydeliberately left her out of left her out of case case allocationsallocations. She said that . She said that Ms MarinouMs Marinou ‘had ‘had thisthis scorchedscorched earth policy and earth policy and toxic toxic othernessotherness towards me’.towards me’.

[69]On On 26 August 202226 August 2022, M, Mss Karabulut Karabulut wrotewrote back to back to saysay thatthat Ms Ms Maunder wMaunder wouldould discussdiscuss extraextra work with work with the claimantthe claimant and and thatthat sheshe would be happy to would be happy to talk to talk to the claimant herself. the claimant herself.

[70]Ms Ms KaKararabulut asked bulut asked the claimanthe claimantt iiff she could do she could do observationsobservations of children but of children but the the claimantclaimant ssaaid she was exempt fid she was exempt frorom face to face workm face to face work..

[71]In September 2019, the claimant’s salary was again not paid. The root of the In September 2019, the claimant’s salary was again not paid. The root of the issue was that a manager had not completed a change form for the claimant. issue was that a manager had not completed a change form for the claimant. Ms Marinou’s evidence was that, prior to going on maternity leave, she was Ms Marinou’s evidence was that, prior to going on maternity leave, she was not aware not aware that the that the claimant’sclaimant’s contract was due to contract was due to bbe renewed. She said e renewed. She said thatthat the Trustthe Trust was not was not alwaysalways effective at alerting service effective at alerting service managersmanagers that a that a contract was due for renewal. She said that she was aware of contract was due for renewal. She said that she was aware of other workers, other workers, across different services, experiencing this issueacross different services, experiencing this issue.. If If it hadit had been brought to her been brought to her attention she would have attention she would have ensured the contract change was actioned. ensured the contract change was actioned.

[72]AAt the end oft the end of September 2022September 2022, Ms , Ms Karabulut Karabulut was was asked to complete asked to complete a a change form change form for the claimant. for the claimant. She said that sheShe said that she tried to tried to clarifyclarify with HR and with HR and the the contractingcontracting teamteam that this wasthat this was thethe correct thing to docorrect thing to do,, which caused some which caused some delaydelay so thatso that the the form form was was submitted on 10 submitted on 10 OctoberOctober 2022 after 2022 after the the payroll cut payroll cut off date of 5 off date of 5 OctoberOctober 20222022.. The date for renewal was before she The date for renewal was before she became became interim service interim service managermanager. She said that she relied on HR t. She said that she relied on HR too alert her to alert her to contracts ending and that had not happened in this case.contracts ending and that had not happened in this case. Case Number: 2211437/2023 14

[73]The claimant put to MsThe claimant put to Ms Karabulut that she would have been aware that the Karabulut that she would have been aware that the contract with the Home Office was due to end in August 2022 but was then contract with the Home Office was due to end in August 2022 but was then extended until March 2023. She said that Ms Karabulut would have been extended until March 2023. She said that Ms Karabulut would have been aware that everyone in the team had their contracts ending in aware that everyone in the team had their contracts ending in August 2022.August 2022. Ms Karabulut Ms Karabulut did not agree with that proposition and did not agree with that proposition and said that people in the said that people in the team had different start dates / renewal dates. team had different start dates / renewal dates.

[74]Ms Karabulut said she was nMs Karabulut said she was notot aware of other contracts ending. She aware of other contracts ending. She was was taken to an email extending Ms Maunder’s conttaken to an email extending Ms Maunder’s contract dated 2 August 2022. This ract dated 2 August 2022. This was sent fwas sent frorom someone in HR, copying in Ms Karabulut and Ms Marinou. Mm someone in HR, copying in Ms Karabulut and Ms Marinou. Mss Karabulut said that she was relying on HR Karabulut said that she was relying on HR ccolleagues to tell her when to olleagues to tell her when to complete change forms. If she was informed by HR, she followed the complete change forms. If she was informed by HR, she followed the procedure. Sprocedure. She thought that would have been via email. She could not he thought that would have been via email. She could not remember what proportion of the team required change forms.remember what proportion of the team required change forms.

[75]Ms Ms KarKaraabulutbulut said that she had ssaid that she had some discussion about thome discussion about the situation with the e situation with the claimant in aclaimant in a tteeam meetingam meeting,, which which the claimantthe claimant feltfelt was was a a breachbreach of of confidentialityconfidentiality. Her . Her intentionintention had been to had been to makemake the claimant the claimant feel supported by feel supported by saying saying thatthat Mr Mr Kent was going to Kent was going to resolveresolve the issue.the issue. Other Other memmembersbers of of the the teamteam werewere having having issues with salary issues with salary paymentspayments so so thisthis wwas part of a more as part of a more generalgeneral discussiondiscussion..

[76]Mr Ajibola told the Tribunal about the process which should have been Mr Ajibola told the Tribunal about the process which should have been followed. As part of compliance reporting followed. As part of compliance reporting by HR by HR there would be a run of there would be a run of contract reporting. Any fixed term contracts due to expire should be identified contract reporting. Any fixed term contracts due to expire should be identified three months ahead othree months ahead of time if possible and a report should be sent to the f time if possible and a report should be sent to the general manager of each division. If a fixed term contract was due to end and general manager of each division. If a fixed term contract was due to end and there was no intention to renew, a there was no intention to renew, a terminationtermination form would have to be form would have to be completed; if there was an intention to renew, a changecompleted; if there was an intention to renew, a change form would need to form would need to be submitted for the 5be submitted for the 5thth of the relevant month. of the relevant month. The contract report sent to the The contract report sent to the general manager might also be sent to the associate director with an general manager might also be sent to the associate director with an expectation that they would expectation that they would ininform the service manager. form the service manager.

[77]When MrWhen Mr Ajibola later investigated the issue, he concluded that the change Ajibola later investigated the issue, he concluded that the change form had not been completed because of miscommunication between form had not been completed because of miscommunication between management and HR. He said that was quite common at the time; there were management and HR. He said that was quite common at the time; there were gaps in processes and a high turnover of managers. gaps in processes and a high turnover of managers. It had happened to other It had happened to other employees; what had happened to the claimant was not typical but nor was it employees; what had happened to the claimant was not typical but nor was it exceptional.exceptional.

[78]Between Between OctoberOctober 2022 2022 and and July 2023July 2023, the claimant told the Tribunal that, the claimant told the Tribunal that she she did ndid notot have monthly supervisiohave monthly supervisionn.. The claimant did The claimant did notnot consider consider that Mthat Mss Maunder, her supervisor, was racist and the two appear to have had a good Maunder, her supervisor, was racist and the two appear to have had a good relationship. relationship.

[79]Ms Ms Karabulut Karabulut told the Tribunal thattold the Tribunal that she spoke toshe spoke to Ms Ms Maunder who saMaunder who said thatid that she she supervisedsupervised the claimantthe claimant up until February 2023. up until February 2023. At the time she spoke to At the time she spoke to her, Ms Maunder was on maternity leave and unable to access her records. her, Ms Maunder was on maternity leave and unable to access her records. Case Number: 2211437/2023 15

[80]Ms Ms Karabulut Karabulut said that she said that she spoke to spoke to Mr Mr Kent Kent before Mbefore Mss Maunder went on Maunder went on maternity leave and hematernity leave and he agreed to find agreed to find the claimant the claimant an external supervisor as an external supervisor as therethere was no was no oneone else in else in the the team who could do itteam who could do it; several members of the ; several members of the small team were on maternity leavesmall team were on maternity leave. There was a. There was a period of tperiod of three monthshree months after after Ms Maunder went on maternity leave Ms Maunder went on maternity leave when when the claimant had the claimant had no supervisor no supervisor butbut MrMr Kent offered to support Kent offered to support the claimantthe claimant with any querieswith any queries.. It appeared from It appeared from Ms Karabulut’s evidence that there was a delay in addressing the issue Ms Karabulut’s evidence that there was a delay in addressing the issue because initially they had been seeking someone to cover Ms Maunder’s post because initially they had been seeking someone to cover Ms Maunder’s post during her maternity leaveduring her maternity leave. Ms Kara. Ms Karabulut had not been part of the search bulut had not been part of the search process. process.

[81]On 2 November 2022, the On 2 November 2022, the claimantclaimant raisedraised issues with payroll about issues with payroll about the fact the fact that she had not beethat she had not beenn paidpaid for two monthsfor two months.. She had complained to Mr She had complained to Mr BamBambrough on 27 brough on 27 OctoberOctober 20222022 and he had raised the matter urgently with and he had raised the matter urgently with payrollpayroll..

[82]On 3 November 2022, she raised a grievance with Mr Bambrough about the On 3 November 2022, she raised a grievance with Mr Bambrough about the pay issue: pay issue: I have now been paid. At first I thought there had been an overpayment and I have now been paid. At first I thought there had been an overpayment and that I was paid as a fullthat I was paid as a full--timer. So, Itimer. So, I contcontacted payroll. I just got off from the acted payroll. I just got off from the phone to them and apparently there is no mistake. The reason is that itphone to them and apparently there is no mistake. The reason is that it was was not 2 months that I have not been paid as I thought, they said it is 3 months. not 2 months that I have not been paid as I thought, they said it is 3 months. So, I let that sink in So, I let that sink in -- I have beenI have been working for 3 months and working for 3 months and not being paid? I not being paid? I however, told them to come back to me if they later find out theyhowever, told them to come back to me if they later find out they were wrong.were wrong. The fall The fall--out from this is that with paying me 3 month’s salary in one go I have out from this is that with paying me 3 month’s salary in one go I have had to pay almost £1500 in tax andhad to pay almost £1500 in tax and National Insurance. When in a normal National Insurance. When in a normal month thmonth the total is usually approximately £205.e total is usually approximately £205. As you know, I have written to HR asking for an explanation and so far no As you know, I have written to HR asking for an explanation and so far no response. I have decided to make aresponse. I have decided to make a formal complaint. I know I am therefore formal complaint. I know I am therefore breaking a promise I made to myself never to complain again in thisbreaking a promise I made to myself never to complain again in this organisation again due to past negative and offorganisation again due to past negative and off--putting experiencesputting experiences.. Please, can you tell me the right person to address this formal complaint to. Please, can you tell me the right person to address this formal complaint to. First, I need to know who wasFirst, I need to know who was responsible for this, how and why it happened? responsible for this, how and why it happened? I also want to be put back in the financial situation (tax & Nl wise)I also want to be put back in the financial situation (tax & Nl wise) that I would that I would have been had this not happened. Thanks.have been had this not happened. Thanks.

[83]She wrote in similar terms to Ms Karabulut. Ms Karabulut write back that day: She wrote in similar terms to Ms Karabulut. Ms Karabulut write back that day: I am I am sorry to hear that the salary payment has caused stress to you. I will get sorry to hear that the salary payment has caused stress to you. I will get back to you once I talk to Tim about this. Please feel free to contact me if you back to you once I talk to Tim about this. Please feel free to contact me if you could like to talk.could like to talk.

[84]The claimant said that she The claimant said that she raisedraised another another grievancegrievance on 4 November 2022 on 4 November 2022 but but thethe document containing the grievance was never identified in the bunddocument containing the grievance was never identified in the bundle or le or produced by the claimant.produced by the claimant. Case Number: 2211437/2023 16

[85]Some time fSome time frorom November 2022 onwards, m November 2022 onwards, there was a there was a discussiondiscussion between between the claimantthe claimant andand MrMr Kent about her role in the teamKent about her role in the team.. This This arosearose ffromrom the the claimantclaimant expressingexpressing unhappiness about allocation unhappiness about allocation ofof work and work and the work she the work she had been given to do.had been given to do.

[86]OOnn 13 November 202213 November 2022, Mr , Mr Kent Kent contactcontacted Msed Ms Merchant to discuss Merchant to discuss the the claimant’sclaimant’s papayy issueissue..

[87]On On 2 December 20222 December 2022, Ms C, Ms C Heneghan Heneghan in HR wrote to the in HR wrote to the claimant:claimant::: Your email complaint has been passed onto me to respond back to you on. Your email complaint has been passed onto me to respond back to you on. I have looked into your situation and as you see from the attached emails that I have looked into your situation and as you see from the attached emails that HR were not notified until after payroll cut off in October that your fixed term HR were not notified until after payroll cut off in October that your fixed term contract was being extended to next year. As soon as we received thecontract was being extended to next year. As soon as we received the instruction of change ESR was updated accordingly. instruction of change ESR was updated accordingly. With regards to your Tax & NI this we are unable to change the situation or With regards to your Tax & NI this we are unable to change the situation or reimburse as this is governed by the HMRC on what Tax & NI reimburse as this is governed by the HMRC on what Tax & NI you pay. Now you pay. Now that your pay has been resolved your tax and NI should be adjusted that your pay has been resolved your tax and NI should be adjusted accordingly.accordingly.

[88]On On 4 December 20224 December 2022, the claimant replied saying that she had been fobbed , the claimant replied saying that she had been fobbed off, as she had been in respect of earlier complaints:off, as she had been in respect of earlier complaints: So, I am not surprised. So, I am not surprised. I have an I have an idea of what happened and your response does not even scratch idea of what happened and your response does not even scratch the surface. That I should accept this and move on when what happened was the surface. That I should accept this and move on when what happened was due to no fault of mine is egregious. That I have lost almost a thousand due to no fault of mine is egregious. That I have lost almost a thousand pounds is simply unacceptable to me especiallypounds is simply unacceptable to me especially for an orgafor an organnisation that has isation that has abused me for over 3 years. abused me for over 3 years. This is just one of the many abuses, racial and otherwise that I have had to This is just one of the many abuses, racial and otherwise that I have had to endure just because I had the temerity to apply for a job here. At a point I endure just because I had the temerity to apply for a job here. At a point I thought things would improve for me but I thought things would improve for me but I was mistaken. I find myself working was mistaken. I find myself working in a toxic environment, where I encounter microin a toxic environment, where I encounter micro--aggressive interaction almost aggressive interaction almost on a daily basis. Where I am gaslighted, demeaned and used as the office on a daily basis. Where I am gaslighted, demeaned and used as the office minion.minion. I have gone through and am still going through hell in this j I have gone through and am still going through hell in this job and there is a ob and there is a limit to everything. I have reached that limit and it is now time to tell the limit to everything. I have reached that limit and it is now time to tell the outside world.outside world.

[89]On On 5 December 2022: 5 December 2022: Mr KenMr Kentt invited the invited the claimantclaimant to meet with him to meet with him about about pay issuepay issue, her complaint having been sent to him by , her complaint having been sent to him by Ms Ms KarabulutKarabulut: : We hav We haven’t met yet but I wanted to introduce myself as the new associate en’t met yet but I wanted to introduce myself as the new associate director for Complex Mental Health which incorporates Returning Families. I director for Complex Mental Health which incorporates Returning Families. I came to your team meeting last week. came to your team meeting last week. I am sorry to hear about your over payment and subsequent deductions, I can I am sorry to hear about your over payment and subsequent deductions, I can fully understand why you are so frustrated and wanting to resolve it without an fully understand why you are so frustrated and wanting to resolve it without an adverse impact on your pay. I note that you have other reason for complaint adverse impact on your pay. I note that you have other reason for complaint and these sounds ongoingand these sounds ongoing for some time? Would you like to meet me, for some time? Would you like to meet me, probably with our HR rep and if you have a union or other representative you probably with our HR rep and if you have a union or other representative you Case Number: 2211437/2023 17 might want to include them so that we can try to unpick things a bit and try might want to include them so that we can try to unpick things a bit and try and find some resolution? I have also asked HR for a payroland find some resolution? I have also asked HR for a payroll contact so that l contact so that we might get a payroll person to actually talk you through what has happened, we might get a payroll person to actually talk you through what has happened, why and what remedial action might be possible under the circumstances. Is why and what remedial action might be possible under the circumstances. Is anyone else in your team (supervisor or line manager closely involved and anyone else in your team (supervisor or line manager closely involved and knows the sknows the situation well?).ituation well?).

[90]Mr KentMr Kent said that he said that he considered that considered that the claimantthe claimant had received a factually had received a factually correctcorrect answer fanswer frorom Hm HR about the pay issue but R about the pay issue but he he was awarewas aware that the that the claimantclaimant felt that she was felt that she was beingbeing fobbed off and fobbed off and he he did ndid notot want her to feel that want her to feel that wayway. He spoke . He spoke withwith Ms Ms MaunderMaunder to understand background factors to to understand background factors to the the situationsituation..

[91]On On 6 December 20226 December 2022, Ms Heneghan wrote to the cl, Ms Heneghan wrote to the claimant answering aimant answering questions the questions the claimantclaimant hadhad raised raised about about who was responsible for the pwho was responsible for the pay ay issue and issue and being compensated for the being compensated for the deddeduction of tax and National uction of tax and National Insurance. She saidInsurance. She said:: ‘‘Your change form was submitted late (after payroll cutYour change form was submitted late (after payroll cut--off) by your line manager. Once submitted was actionedoff) by your line manager. Once submitted was actioned.’ And as to the tax .’ And as to the tax and National Insurance issue: and National Insurance issue: ‘‘This a HMRC deduction and not a trust This a HMRC deduction and not a trust deduction.deduction.’’ She saidShe said: ‘: ‘Within your email response you have made a number Within your email response you have made a number of references to your experiences with working within the of references to your experiences with working within the organize [sic]organize [sic]. If you . If you would likewould like to meet to discuss those with me I am more than happy to this to meet to discuss those with me I am more than happy to this week.week.’’

[92]On On 1515 December 2022, the claimant met with Mr Kent and Ms Heneghan December 2022, the claimant met with Mr Kent and Ms Heneghan to to discuss discuss the pay the pay issueissue. Mr Kent said that . Mr Kent said that the claimant the claimant expressedexpressed mistrust of mistrust of further meetingsfurther meetings. He understood that she had mistrust due to past . He understood that she had mistrust due to past experiencesexperiences which she felt which she felt hadhad nnotot been resolvedbeen resolved. . They tThey talked about her pay.alked about her pay. The claimant The claimant wanted to wanted to discussdiscuss her previous her previous grievancegrievance where she felt that where she felt that she had nshe had notot had had justice. justice. Ms Heneghan Ms Heneghan explainedexplained that those concerns had that those concerns had already been already been investigatedinvestigated..

[93]That same day, the That same day, the claimantclaimant write to complain about Ms Heneghan, saying write to complain about Ms Heneghan, saying that she had brought her own agenda to the meeting and tried to hijack it by that she had brought her own agenda to the meeting and tried to hijack it by constantly interrupting the constantly interrupting the claimantclaimant:: You defended the decision not to uphold my racism complaint so strongly as if You defended the decision not to uphold my racism complaint so strongly as if you were there.you were there. I only did it to have it on record. It was a st I only did it to have it on record. It was a stitch up right from the beginning. itch up right from the beginning. When I saw the way things were going, I recorded one meeting and I was When I saw the way things were going, I recorded one meeting and I was shocked when I compared it to their minutesshocked when I compared it to their minutes I stand by the fact that my tormentor had friends in high places in the I stand by the fact that my tormentor had friends in high places in the Tavistock and that is why she was aTavistock and that is why she was able to get away wble to get away w[ith][ith] blue murder. She blue murder. She even turned herself into the victim …Whether you believe it or not the even turned herself into the victim …Whether you believe it or not the organisation is reeking of racism and calling in an agency to write up a policy organisation is reeking of racism and calling in an agency to write up a policy about it is just whitewashing it. Perhaps you should look up theiabout it is just whitewashing it. Perhaps you should look up their history of r history of blatant racist discrimination of their employees…blatant racist discrimination of their employees…

[94]On 2On 20 December 20220 December 2022, Ms , Ms Stennett Stennett ((Ms Ms Heneghan’s manager) Heneghan’s manager) wrwrote ote to the to the claimant claimant to to ask her to meet with her about the complaint against Ms ask her to meet with her about the complaint against Ms Case Number: 2211437/2023 18 Heneghan. The claimant replied on 21 December 2021 saying that there was Heneghan. The claimant replied on 21 December 2021 saying that there was no point in having another meeting. Ms Steno point in having another meeting. Ms Stennett asked the claimant innett asked the claimant iff she she wanted to progress the complaint as a formal grievance and, if so, when wanted to progress the complaint as a formal grievance and, if so, when they they could discuss it.could discuss it.

[95]On On 22 Decembe22 December 2022r 2022, the claimant wr, the claimant wroote to Ms Stennett saying that she te to Ms Stennett saying that she could attend a could attend a meetimeeting ng in in the the newnew yearyear. Ms . Ms Stennett saStennett saidid she wshe wouldould send send an an invitation for 5 Janinvitation for 5 Januauaryry 2023. The claimant said that she did not work 2023. The claimant said that she did not work Mondays and Ms Stennett clarified that 5 January was a Tuesday. The Mondays and Ms Stennett clarified that 5 January was a Tuesday. The claimantclaimant said that she might be taking tsaid that she might be taking tiime off during that period and Ms me off during that period and Ms SStetennett asked if she could confirm her availability for the weeksnnett asked if she could confirm her availability for the weeks commencincommencing g 2 and 9 Jan2 and 9 Januauary 2023ry 2023. .

[96]The claimant then asked Ms Stennett toThe claimant then asked Ms Stennett to stop harassing her stop harassing her withwith email. She email. She wwould ould contact hecontact herr in new year with a in new year with a suitablesuitable date and date and timetime. Ms Stennett said . Ms Stennett said that she would have tothat she would have to arrange arrange a a meeting by 15 Janmeeting by 15 January latestuary latest or or she would she would closeclose the the casecase..

[97]The claimant then sent an email to Mr Holland, the respondent’s CEOThe claimant then sent an email to Mr Holland, the respondent’s CEO,, complaining about complaining about Ms Ms Stennett threatening to close Stennett threatening to close the the casecase. Mr . Mr HollandHolland replied that he was replied that he was sorry she fesorry she feltlt harassed. harassed. He hoped that aHe hoped that a time time couldcould be be arranged to dearranged to dealal with her with her complaintscomplaints..

[98]Mr Mr Holland Holland ssubsequently (in February 2023) asked Mr ubsequently (in February 2023) asked Mr AjibolaAjibola to to investigateinvestigate the the issuesissues the claimant raised. Mrthe claimant raised. Mr AjiAjibola startbola started hised his rolerole with the respondent with the respondent on on 28 Jan28 Januauary 2023ry 2023..

[99]On On 8 8 JanuaryJanuary 20232023, Mr, Mr Kent Kent wrwroteote to to the claimant the claimant to see if to see if her her tax atax annd NI d NI had been had been sortedsorted outout and whether the claimant wanted to meet with him and and whether the claimant wanted to meet with him and Ms Stennett. Ms Stennett.

[100]The advice the respondent The advice the respondent had had received freceived frorom payroll m payroll wawas that there was s that there was nothing wrong with the nothing wrong with the paypay calculationscalculations; th; thee tax and NI deducted should be tax and NI deducted should be adjusted by HMRC.adjusted by HMRC.

[101]The The claimantclaimant wrotewrote back to say back to say thatthat tax and NI had not been sorted out:tax and NI had not been sorted out: There were no adjustments in my pay There were no adjustments in my pay unfortunatelyunfortunately. To be honest with you,. To be honest with you, I I am not fighting this pay issue because I am desperate for money. I make am not fighting this pay issue because I am desperate for money. I make enough money from my selfenough money from my self--employment that the income from the Tavistock is employment that the income from the Tavistock is just pocket money for my children. If I depended on it, I would have noticed just pocket money for my children. If I depended on it, I would have noticed that I had not been paid for that I had not been paid for one month, how much more 3 monthsone month, how much more 3 months..

[102]The claimant tThe claimant toldold the the Tribunal Tribunal that whathat whatt she said she said in the email about nin the email about notot needing the money needing the money was not truewas not true. It appeared that she was saying she had . It appeared that she was saying she had written the email in written the email in that way out of pride.that way out of pride. She wrote in further information for She wrote in further information for these proceedings:these proceedings: Not paying me for 3 consecutive months in July August September 2022 was Not paying me for 3 consecutive months in July August September 2022 was a minor administrative error to the Respoa minor administrative error to the Respondent. However, it was a major thing ndent. However, it was a major thing for me as it resulted in many defaults resulting in a damaged credit file that for me as it resulted in many defaults resulting in a damaged credit file that Case Number: 2211437/2023 19 will last 6 years, mortgage arrears, numerous threatening letters due to non will last 6 years, mortgage arrears, numerous threatening letters due to non payment of bills.payment of bills. …. …. After the two salary incidents. Tim and H After the two salary incidents. Tim and Hulya seem to be obsessed with how it ulya seem to be obsessed with how it affected me. They wanted to know so as to feed their gloating. Tim even affected me. They wanted to know so as to feed their gloating. Tim even invited me to a meeting to tell him, It was weird so I told Tim it did not affect invited me to a meeting to tell him, It was weird so I told Tim it did not affect me one bit because I had another job. The disappointment on his fme one bit because I had another job. The disappointment on his face was ace was clearly evident.clearly evident.

[103]On On 31 Jan31 Januaruaryy 2023, Ms2023, Ms StennettStennett wrote to wrote to the claimant saying that shethe claimant saying that she would would close the complaint ifclose the complaint if the claimantthe claimant did ndid notot meetmeet with her:with her: I do hope we can arrange a time that suits you in the very near future to meet I do hope we can arrange a time that suits you in the very near future to meet with me so that your complaint can be dealt with. Understandably, the with me so that your complaint can be dealt with. Understandably, the colleague who you have named within your complaint they would also like to colleague who you have named within your complaint they would also like to seek a resolution as soon as poseek a resolution as soon as possible. ssible. Could I suggest that we schedule a meeting by 8th February 2023? Could I suggest that we schedule a meeting by 8th February 2023? Otherwise, I willOtherwise, I will consider this matter is closed and your complaint is consider this matter is closed and your complaint is withdrawn.withdrawn.

[104]On On 1 1 FebruaryFebruary 2023, the claimant wrote to Ms Stennett and 2023, the claimant wrote to Ms Stennett and asked asked iif the letter f the letter was a joke as they had had a meeting and was a joke as they had had a meeting and discusseddiscussed paypay slipsslips and and Ms Ms Stennett had Stennett had said she would email for said she would email for moremore detailsdetails. . It appeared to the It appeared to the Tribunal that that had been a meeting to further explore the pay issueTribunal that that had been a meeting to further explore the pay issue,, not a not a meeting about the complaimeeting about the complaint against Ms Hennt against Ms Henegeghanhan..

[105]Ms Stennett Ms Stennett wrote backwrote back asking asking the claimantthe claimant not to use not to use inflammatoryinflammatory languagelanguage and and exclamation marksexclamation marks asas that was that was considered shoutingconsidered shouting. . She said that tShe said that they hey had had an had had an informalinformal meeting aboutmeeting about the pay issue the pay issue butbut she she waswas wondering wondering if the if the claimant claimant was was seekingseeking to to pursuepursue a a grievance against grievance against Ms Ms HeneghanHeneghan..

[106]The claimant then wrote:The claimant then wrote: I make no apologies for whatever I make no apologies for whatever language youlanguage you say I used in my last email! say I used in my last email! As usual you have now lied about what you said at the last meeting. We were As usual you have now lied about what you said at the last meeting. We were not alone! While viewing my payslips you kept on taking about deductions for not alone! While viewing my payslips you kept on taking about deductions for a loan a loan -- you said this several times. I responded several times that theryou said this several times. I responded several times that there was e was no such deduction on my payslip as I have never taken a loan from the no such deduction on my payslip as I have never taken a loan from the Tavistock!! You clearly stated that you will contact me for more information. Tavistock!! You clearly stated that you will contact me for more information. You want respect? Respect begets respect!!! Looking at the emails you sent You want respect? Respect begets respect!!! Looking at the emails you sent me before Christmas, you hame before Christmas, you have no respect for me so why should I respect ve no respect for me so why should I respect you!!!!!!!!!you!!!!!!!!!

[107]Ms Ms Stennett then Stennett then escalatedescalated the matter the matter to to Ms Ms Merchant who Merchant who waswas in in correspondencecorrespondence with with Mr Mr Kent about Kent about howhow to deto dealal with the issuewith the issue..

[108]On 2 February 2023, the claimant submittedOn 2 February 2023, the claimant submitted aa DSAR DSAR via a via a general HR inbogeneral HR inboxx..

[109]On On 13 13 FebruaryFebruary 20232023, Ms , Ms Karabulut Karabulut sent an email to the claimant, sent an email to the claimant, apologapologiising for sing for the the situation with late payment and situation with late payment and the the discussion discussion about it about it in in a a team team meetingmeeting:: Case Number: 2211437/2023 20 I hope this e I hope this e--mail finds you well. I am sorry that you have experienced strmail finds you well. I am sorry that you have experienced stress ess and financial difficulties due to your fixed term contract not being renewed on and financial difficulties due to your fixed term contract not being renewed on time. I write to advise that at the end of September 2022 I was advised that time. I write to advise that at the end of September 2022 I was advised that your fixed term contract was terminated in August. I then clarified this with HR your fixed term contract was terminated in August. I then clarified this with HR and finance and finance and then submitted the change of contract form to extend your and then submitted the change of contract form to extend your fixed term contract until 31.03.2023. However, this was done later than the fixed term contract until 31.03.2023. However, this was done later than the payroll’s submission date, which caused a further delay in payment. I am payroll’s submission date, which caused a further delay in payment. I am unable to know whose contract needs to be runable to know whose contract needs to be renewed unless I receive a enewed unless I receive a notification from either the Finance Department or HR, nevertheless, I am notification from either the Finance Department or HR, nevertheless, I am sorry for the hardship this has caused yousorry for the hardship this has caused you. . Regarding the discussion in the team meeting in respect to employment Regarding the discussion in the team meeting in respect to employment contracts. My intention was to have a contracts. My intention was to have a general discussion about possible general discussion about possible payment and employment contract issues. You may remember that some payment and employment contract issues. You may remember that some other team members also had similar issues with salary payments. other team members also had similar issues with salary payments. Nevertheless, I should not have talked about your personal difficulties in the Nevertheless, I should not have talked about your personal difficulties in the meeting ameeting and I am sorry for that. I hope the explanation above answers some nd I am sorry for that. I hope the explanation above answers some of your questions but I am happy to discuss these further if you have any of your questions but I am happy to discuss these further if you have any other questions. Please let me know if you want to meet to discuss this other questions. Please let me know if you want to meet to discuss this matter further.matter further.

[110]It was some time around thIt was some time around this time that Mr is time that Mr AjibolaAjibola, who had, who had starstartted in ed in postpost as as associate associate directordirector of peopleof people, was, was asked by asked by Mr Mr Holland to lookHolland to look into into the the issues issues raised byraised by the claimant the claimant and provide him with a summary of the issuesand provide him with a summary of the issues. It was . It was unclear unclear to the Tribunal to the Tribunal what the ultimate purpose what the ultimate purpose of that activity was. of that activity was.

[111]On On 14 February 202314 February 2023, Mr , Mr AjibolaAjibola wrwroteote in in responseresponse toto the claimant’s letter tothe claimant’s letter to Mr Mr Holland on 22 December 2022Holland on 22 December 2022. He . He apapoologiselogisedd for how for how the the case case had been had been managed managed and askand askeded what outcome she what outcome she waswas seeking. seeking. He asHe asked whether ked whether she she would like to meet and would like to meet and tthere was ahere was an email discussionn email discussion about meeting the about meeting the following week.following week.

[112]On On 15 15 FebruaryFebruary 20232023, the claimant, the claimant wrote to wrote to Ms Ms Karabulut not accepting her Karabulut not accepting her explanationexplanations. s. She said that she had not been caused any She said that she had not been caused any financialfinancial difficultiesdifficulties.. There are just a number of things that happened that lead me to think that this There are just a number of things that happened that lead me to think that this was not a mistake. You renewed Ellens' contract on the 1st of August 2022, was not a mistake. You renewed Ellens' contract on the 1st of August 2022, why was mine not renewed at the why was mine not renewed at the same time? We are a very small team, and same time? We are a very small team, and you knew that the contract was terminating on the 31st of March. You also you knew that the contract was terminating on the 31st of March. You also knew that I have been in the team for a long time and would be affected. If as knew that I have been in the team for a long time and would be affected. If as you claim that nobody told you, why did you not ask as I wouldyou claim that nobody told you, why did you not ask as I would have thought have thought that this is part of the Managers role. You only sent the change form to that this is part of the Managers role. You only sent the change form to Shamim and Christian on the 10/10/22 Shamim and Christian on the 10/10/22 -- this was two months too late.this was two months too late.

[113]On On 22 February 202222 February 2022, there was a meeting between the claimant , there was a meeting between the claimant and and Mr Mr AjibolaAjibola..

[114]Mr Mr AjibolaAjibola tthen prehen preppared a report on what appeared to him to be the issuesared a report on what appeared to him to be the issues raised by the claimantraised by the claimant.. Case Number: 2211437/2023 21

[115]In March 2023, MsIn March 2023, Ms Maunder, the claimant’s supervisor, started maternity Maunder, the claimant’s supervisor, started maternity leave. The parties agree that the claimant did not have supervisions for leave. The parties agree that the claimant did not have supervisions for several months after that. several months after that.

[116]On On 10 March 202310 March 2023, the claimant sent an , the claimant sent an email to email to Mr Mr Kent about Kent about reallocationreallocation ofof work on work on her her supervisupervisorsor going on matgoing on materniternity leavy leave; she said thate; she said that that she hathat she hadd been been leftleft outout. This . This follows on from correspondence with follows on from correspondence with Ms Ms KarabulutKarabulut about about the same issue. the same issue. Ms Karabulut Ms Karabulut considered that theconsidered that the discussion had been about discussion had been about allocating care coordinators, who allocating care coordinators, who werewere clinicians and other senior staffclinicians and other senior staff; the ; the claimant believed it was about reallocating other work Mclaimant believed it was about reallocating other work Mss MaunderMaunder performedperformed. .

[117]Mr Kent invited the claimant to a meeting at which Mr Kent invited the claimant to a meeting at which hehe made remarks abomade remarks about ut which the which the claimantclaimant makes complaints. makes complaints. The invitation email sent on 19 March The invitation email sent on 19 March 2023 sa2023 saidid:: Thanks for your message. Thanks for your message. I wonder if the best way to negotiate and think through this situation would be I wonder if the best way to negotiate and think through this situation would be a mediated meeting with Hulya and myself, perhaps Dayo a mediated meeting with Hulya and myself, perhaps Dayo could join us if you could join us if you both think helpful to have someone slightly outside of our service to observe both think helpful to have someone slightly outside of our service to observe and comment if neededand comment if needed. .

[118]Mr Kent said that he wondered if the claimant was working at below the level Mr Kent said that he wondered if the claimant was working at below the level of her capability of her capability as she appeared to have more experieas she appeared to have more experience and qualifications nce and qualifications than were required for her role.than were required for her role. He He toldtold the Tribunal that he wanted the Tribunal that he wanted to to understand what could be understand what could be donedone to support the to support the claimantclaimant and and helphelp her to feel her to feel happy in happy in herher role. role.

[119]He said that he shared some of his own personal history He said that he shared some of his own personal history to to engender trustengender trust. He . He wanted to understand wanted to understand what it was about the work which what it was about the work which boundbound her to working her to working with these particular children. with these particular children. He suggested that the claimant do some He suggested that the claimant do some observations of children; she said that she was not paid to do thaobservations of children; she said that she was not paid to do thatt; she was ; she was exempt from faexempt from facece--toto--face face workwork. . Mr Kent believed it was a suitable task for Mr Kent believed it was a suitable task for someone in the claimant’s role. someone in the claimant’s role.

[120]Mr Kent said that during the discussion Mr Kent said that during the discussion therethere was was somesome referencereference to the to the claimantclaimant coming across an area of conflict in her life coming across an area of conflict in her life experience. He said that experience. He said that he took fhe took frorom that m that that there might be a part of the claimantthat there might be a part of the claimant which which feltfelt very very passionate or emotionally passionate or emotionally connectedconnected to the to the experienceexperience ofof the the childrenchildren.. He He said that was not uncommon for pesaid that was not uncommon for people working in social care. ople working in social care. He said that He said that he did not he did not suggestsuggest or himself infer that theor himself infer that the claimant had claimant had aany connection tony connection to terrorism. terrorism. He shared some of his He shared some of his ownown personal history with the personal history with the claimantclaimant in in relation to why he had entered social work and his connectionrelation to why he had entered social work and his connection with the people with the people they worked with. they worked with.

[121]On On 14 March 202314 March 2023, Mr, Mr AjibolaAjibola updateupdatedd the claimantthe claimant as to when as to when his his report report would would be readybe ready..

[122]On On 21 March 202321 March 2023, Mr , Mr AjibolaAjibola sent the claimant a draft of his email reporting sent the claimant a draft of his email reporting to Mrto Mr HHollandolland. The email opened:. The email opened: Case Number: 2211437/2023 22 I write further to my meeting with Gloria Okwu on 22nd February 2023 to I write further to my meeting with Gloria Okwu on 22nd February 2023 to provide you with a written summary of the points covered during our provide you with a written summary of the points covered during our discussion. I have provided in this email, the concerns raised by Gloria discussion. I have provided in this email, the concerns raised by Gloria regarding how she was treated her previous regarding how she was treated her previous manager and most recently, her manager and most recently, her current line manager. Gloria confirmed during our meeting that her illcurrent line manager. Gloria confirmed during our meeting that her ill--treatment has been consistent throughout the entirety of her employment with treatment has been consistent throughout the entirety of her employment with the Trust. As agreed with Gloria, I have themed the points raised by Gloria the Trust. As agreed with Gloria, I have themed the points raised by Gloria uunder the subheadings below: nder the subheadings below: Breach of Confidentiality. Breach of Confidentiality. Failure in duty of care. Failure in duty of care. Injuries to feeling and financial challenges. Injuries to feeling and financial challenges. For context, Gloria explained to me that she has made several complaints For context, Gloria explained to me that she has made several complaints regarding the abuse she suffered within her depregarding the abuse she suffered within her department and none of these artment and none of these complaints were investigated fairly. Gloria explained that her complaint did not complaints were investigated fairly. Gloria explained that her complaint did not address the racist abuse she suffered and only addressed the bullying & address the racist abuse she suffered and only addressed the bullying & harassment complaint she raised. Gloria explained to me that attempts were harassment complaint she raised. Gloria explained to me that attempts were mamade to deliberately misinterpret the statements she made during the de to deliberately misinterpret the statements she made during the investigation into the bullying & harassment complaint. Gloria affirmed that investigation into the bullying & harassment complaint. Gloria affirmed that she made it very clear that the statements that were attributed to her were she made it very clear that the statements that were attributed to her were incorrect. Gloria confirmed that theincorrect. Gloria confirmed that these actions doubtful of the investigation se actions doubtful of the investigation proceedings and she was not confident a ‘just’ outcome would be reached proceedings and she was not confident a ‘just’ outcome would be reached –– in in Gloria’s opinion this was not reached as the outcome of the investigation was Gloria’s opinion this was not reached as the outcome of the investigation was ‘no case’ to answer.‘no case’ to answer.

[123]On 24 March 2023, a team meeting tooOn 24 March 2023, a team meeting tookk pplace at which the claimant lace at which the claimant allegealleged d that that racist remarks racist remarks were were made about monkeysmade about monkeys byby Dr Shaw.Dr Shaw.

[124]The claimant’s case was that Dr Shaw said, verbatim:The claimant’s case was that Dr Shaw said, verbatim: ‘a mate who lives in ‘a mate who lives in Africa Africa told me that African monkeys are very badtold me that African monkeys are very bad, they are wicked, they throw , they are wicked, they throw poo at poo at people.’ She said that this jpeople.’ She said that this joke came out of oke came out of nowherenowhere –– there was no there was no relevant relevant contextcontext for ifor itt. She said that . She said that she was shocked and very upset but she was shocked and very upset but everyone else burst out laughingeveryone else burst out laughing..

[125]Dr Shaw told the Tribunal Dr Shaw told the Tribunal that he sometimes that he sometimes uses stories uses stories when sharing when sharing clclinical insights or experience with the team. inical insights or experience with the team. He told an anecdote which He told an anecdote which related to events 30 related to events 30 –– 40 years ago when he stayed with a friend40 years ago when he stayed with a friend living in a living in a rural part of Africarural part of Africa. He was excited to discover that there were monkeys living . He was excited to discover that there were monkeys living in the tree opposite his frin the tree opposite his friend’s iend’s house.house. The reality was that The reality was that the monkeys did the monkeys did nnotot like the people and would shout like the people and would shout atat them and sometimes throwthem and sometimes throw faeces. faeces. The The point of the story was point of the story was that peoplethat people sometimes naively enter sometimes naively enter a situation with an a situation with an approachapproach iin mind and good intentions n mind and good intentions that are not that are not alwaysalways reciprocatedreciprocated by the by the other partyother party to to the relationship. the relationship.

[126]Dr Shaw said that, having read statementDr Shaw said that, having read statementss given to an internal investigation, given to an internal investigation, he now recalls the context in which the monkey anecdote arosehe now recalls the context in which the monkey anecdote arose, although he , although he ddid nto recall the context when he was spoken to during the internal id nto recall the context when he was spoken to during the internal investigationinvestigation. They were discussing a . They were discussing a child who presented as extremely child who presented as extremely emotionally shut emotionally shut downdown and difficult to read and difficult to read but occasionally gbut occasionally gaveave insight into insight into Case Number: 2211437/2023 23 the very malign world view they were b the very malign world view they were brought up to follow. rought up to follow. A colleague A colleague reported how the child had called her ‘monkey fart’ and ‘reported how the child had called her ‘monkey fart’ and ‘monkeymonkey poo’ in a poo’ in a session. session. That That hahadd brought his anecdote to mind abrought his anecdote to mind annd he shared it because itd he shared it because it capturecapturedd the the feelingsfeelings of hurt and surprise caused of hurt and surprise caused by an unexpected attack.by an unexpected attack.

[127]In the internal In the internal investigationinvestigation into the into the claimant’sclaimant’s complaintcomplaints about this matter, s about this matter, Ms Bailey Ms Bailey reported reported that that Ms RocamMs Rocamoorraa Sanches had Sanches had ssaidaid that that on one on one occasionoccasion the childthe child ran away from her, calling her a ran away from her, calling her a name like “monkeyname like “monkey--fart” or fart” or “monkey“monkey--poo.”poo.” Dr Shaw’s Dr Shaw’s anecdoteanecdote related related to to thatthat; he said that a certain ; he said that a certain breed of monkey did throw poobreed of monkey did throw poo and that what the child said might have been and that what the child said might have been factually accurate. factually accurate.

[128]Ms RocamMs Rocamoorraa SanchesSanches gave a similar account of the conversation. gave a similar account of the conversation. She said She said tthhat she had laughed when Dr Shaw said some at she had laughed when Dr Shaw said some monkeymonkeyss threw faeces at threw faeces at people. people. Neither Neither she she nor nor MsMs Bailey perceived Dr Shaw’s remarks as being Bailey perceived Dr Shaw’s remarks as being targeted at anyone. targeted at anyone.

[129]The claimant said in The claimant said in evidenceevidence that Ms Bailey and Ms Rocamora Sanches had that Ms Bailey and Ms Rocamora Sanches had made up these accounts; this made up these accounts; this wawas as a child who did not engagechild who did not engage and therefore and therefore would not have said those thingswould not have said those things..

[130]The The claimant gave evclaimant gave evidenceidence about why she perceived the joke to be racist. It about why she perceived the joke to be racist. It was put to hewas put to herr that that Dr Dr Shaw had not compared her or any other African Shaw had not compared her or any other African person to a person to a monkeymonkey: : You You can’t tell me what I feel. Anyone who uses a monkey joke incan’t tell me what I feel. Anyone who uses a monkey joke in front of an front of an African is referAfrican is referring to an African. It hurts mering to an African. It hurts me.. … … I I took it as him referring to me. Because of history around that word.took it as him referring to me. Because of history around that word. He was He was sayingsaying thethe monkey joke to getmonkey joke to get a laugh for no reason at all. Ina laugh for no reason at all. In ththee sense that sense that hehe said it and how he said it and how they laughed, said it and how he said it and how they laughed, it it was mewas me, , they they were referring to me. Everything happening to me inwere referring to me. Everything happening to me in thethe team and then that team and then that joke comesjoke comes..

[131]The claimant also gave evidenceThe claimant also gave evidence that that Dr Dr Shaw had a monkey mug which he Shaw had a monkey mug which he turnedturned towards her in meetingstowards her in meetings sso that the monkey faced hero that the monkey faced her. This was . This was raisedraised in in the clthe claiaimantmant’’s s witnesswitness statementstatement for the first timefor the first time..

[132]These were online These were online meetingsmeetings with a number of people present. with a number of people present. DDrr Shaw Shaw showed the showed the TTribunal what he saribunal what he saiid was td was thhe only monkey mug in his kitchen e only monkey mug in his kitchen cupboard. cupboard. This had a stThis had a stylisedylised drawingdrawing of a of a monkeymonkey amongst amongst oother animals ther animals and and plantsplants on it. The claimanton it. The claimant said that was not the mugsaid that was not the mug; ; she did nshe did notot describe describe the mug she said she sawthe mug she said she saw..

[133]Dr Shaw said that he was unaware that the claimant took the monkey mug to Dr Shaw said that he was unaware that the claimant took the monkey mug to be about her; he had not intended to send any coded signal. He did not point be about her; he had not intended to send any coded signal. He did not point the mug at the claimant. He observed that he is careful to place his mug down the mug at the claimant. He observed that he is careful to place his mug down on a particular mat so as on a particular mat so as not to mark the table he sits at. not to mark the table he sits at. Case Number: 2211437/2023 24

[134]The claimant also made an aThe claimant also made an allegation that Dr llegation that Dr SShaw would leahaw would lean n close to the close to the screen when screen when the claimant the claimant was speaking was speaking iin online n online meetingsmeetings and cup his earand cup his ear..

[135]Dr Shaw said that he might lean forward when trying to hear someone in Dr Shaw said that he might lean forward when trying to hear someone in an an online meeting. His hearing was not as good as it could be and he online meeting. His hearing was not as good as it could be and he sometimes sometimes found it hard to hear over video link. It was not his intention to be found it hard to hear over video link. It was not his intention to be disrespectful; he wanted to catch every word and make sure people did not disrespectful; he wanted to catch every word and make sure people did not have to repeat themselves. have to repeat themselves.

[136]She made a further aShe made a further allegationllegation about Dr Shaw not speaking toabout Dr Shaw not speaking to her. She her. She cclarified larified in oral evin oral evidenceidence that that she she waswas talkingtalking about about occasionsoccasions when she saw when she saw Dr Shaw inDr Shaw in thethe canteen speaking with other people.canteen speaking with other people. SShe said that he did nhe said that he did not ot speak to her socially in that wayspeak to her socially in that way..

[137]Dr Shaw said that he would welcome a conversation with the claimant; he just Dr Shaw said that he would welcome a conversation with the claimant; he just did ndid notot know her that well. He could think of few occasions when they would know her that well. He could think of few occasions when they would have been in the canteen togetherhave been in the canteen together.. He had first worked with MsHe had first worked with Ms Marinou in Marinou in 2007 and they had worked together fairly steadily since then2007 and they had worked together fairly steadily since then. T. They were not hey were not close friends but they knew about each other’s lives and would touch base close friends but they knew about each other’s lives and would touch base when they saw each other. He had known some of the other members of the when they saw each other. He had known some of the other members of the team a number of yearsteam a number of years and had shared a ‘bit of and had shared a ‘bit of ourselvesourselves with each other’.with each other’.

[138]We hWe heard some additional eard some additional evidenceevidence about about socializing. The claimant said that socializing. The claimant said that she was not invited to some social occasions that she had heard other she was not invited to some social occasions that she had heard other members of the team talking about in team meetings; themembers of the team talking about in team meetings; they would be y would be discussing what discussing what they hadthey had eaten and eaten and restaurantsrestaurants they could try on another they could try on another occasion. occasion.

[139]Ms Marinou said that sometimes in remote team meetings there would be a Ms Marinou said that sometimes in remote team meetings there would be a discussion about trying to organise a coffee together. These discussions had discussion about trying to organise a coffee together. These discussions had occurred ioccurred in front of everyone including the claimant. The claimant had not n front of everyone including the claimant. The claimant had not been interested in socializing with the team and had not attended a meal been interested in socializing with the team and had not attended a meal which had recently been arranged. That was the only such outing Mrs which had recently been arranged. That was the only such outing Mrs Marinou was aware of Marinou was aware of taking place taking place anandd the claimantthe claimant had beenhad been invited to it. invited to it.

[140]Ms Marinou said that there had been no Christmas social occasions Ms Marinou said that there had been no Christmas social occasions for for some some years due to the pandemic. The claimant had not attended one arranged years due to the pandemic. The claimant had not attended one arranged mmore recently.ore recently. We saw an emailWe saw an email for that eventfor that event in which the claimant was in which the claimant was amongst the invitees. amongst the invitees.

[141]On 31 March 2023, the claimant’s fixed term contract expired. Ms Maunder On 31 March 2023, the claimant’s fixed term contract expired. Ms Maunder had gone had gone oon maternity leave by this point. n maternity leave by this point.

[142]On On 10 April 202310 April 2023, the , the claimantclaimant sentsent Mr AjMr Ajiibola various bola various amendmentsamendments to to his his draft email todraft email to MMrr HoHollland. land.

[143]In In her her covering emailcovering email, the claimant said:, the claimant said: Case Number: 2211437/2023 25 I It's been a particularly tough time for me in the team. Recently, they started t's been a particularly tough time for me in the team. Recently, they started having a discussion in a team meeting about Monkeys having a discussion in a team meeting about Monkeys -- laughing and saying laughing and saying Monkeys are bad as someone living in Africa said that they throw poo at Monkeys are bad as someone living in Africa said that they throw poo at people. I was extremely upset bypeople. I was extremely upset by this as I know that it was on me. What does this as I know that it was on me. What does this have to do with the team meeting? I had to take a couple of days off and this have to do with the team meeting? I had to take a couple of days off and then annual leave because I cannot seem to get my head around why these then annual leave because I cannot seem to get my head around why these people are so confident as to be behaving like this. I have speople are so confident as to be behaving like this. I have spoken out about poken out about issues like this the whole time I have been here which is from November issues like this the whole time I have been here which is from November 2019. The racism is at an organisational and local level. It is so endemic that it 2019. The racism is at an organisational and local level. It is so endemic that it is part of the furniture. is part of the furniture. People are so brazen about it as they know nothing will ha People are so brazen about it as they know nothing will happen. ppen. Now, they are hell bent on getting rid of me. Now, they are hell bent on getting rid of me.

[144]Mr Mr AjibolaAjibola said thatsaid that he exhe explainedplained to to the claimantthe claimant that that hehe could could notnot make make the the additions she wanted additions she wanted to his draft email to his draft email without without evidenceevidence to support the to support the allegationsallegations..

[145]On On 24 24 AprilApril 20232023, Mr , Mr AjiboAjibolla emaila emailed Mred Mr Kent about Kent about the the claimantclaimant’s’s cocontractntract not being extendednot being extended:: Unfortunately, a change form was not completed to extend Gloria’s FTC from Unfortunately, a change form was not completed to extend Gloria’s FTC from 31st March 2023 31st March 2023 –– Gloria called me thinking pay day was today but I informed Gloria called me thinking pay day was today but I informed her it was tomorrow. I have her it was tomorrow. I have completed a change form for Gloria this morning completed a change form for Gloria this morning and will ensure she is on the supp run for the following week where she will and will ensure she is on the supp run for the following week where she will receive her full pay. Can we please find out from Hulya what happened?receive her full pay. Can we please find out from Hulya what happened?

[146]MrMr Kent wrKent wrote to the claimant to say that the situation woulote to the claimant to say that the situation would be rectified:d be rectified: I heard from Dayo that you have not received pay and am grateful that he has I heard from Dayo that you have not received pay and am grateful that he has set up a change to ensure prompt payment asap. I am very sorry this has set up a change to ensure prompt payment asap. I am very sorry this has happened (I am also aware it happened before) and will endeavour to find out happened (I am also aware it happened before) and will endeavour to find out what has not twhat has not taken place in order for your contract change to have fallen aken place in order for your contract change to have fallen behind.behind.

[147]About supervision, he wrote: About supervision, he wrote: You and Hulya have both asked about supervision and I have been in touch You and Hulya have both asked about supervision and I have been in touch with colleagues through the social work discipline as it seems most relevant to with colleagues through the social work discipline as it seems most relevant to your work as a Family Support Worker. One of our wider trust colleagues has your work as a Family Support Worker. One of our wider trust colleagues has asked what the frequency woasked what the frequency would need to be, please could you let me know uld need to be, please could you let me know how often you were meeting with your previous supervisor? how often you were meeting with your previous supervisor?

[148]The claimant replied to say thatThe claimant replied to say that the the apologyapology waswas not accepted. not accepted. She also She also complained about lack of supervision: complained about lack of supervision: Hulya is asking about my supervision. H Hulya is asking about my supervision. How kind of her. However, it was on her ow kind of her. However, it was on her watch that I have not had supervision for 6 months and counting. Yes, the last watch that I have not had supervision for 6 months and counting. Yes, the last time I had supervision was October 2022. My supervision contract states that time I had supervision was October 2022. My supervision contract states that this should happen monthly but perhaps my team management thithis should happen monthly but perhaps my team management thinks that as nks that as an 'office junior' I do not need it at alan 'office junior' I do not need it at all.l.

[149]Mr Mr Kent Kent then emailed Ms Karabulutthen emailed Ms Karabulut Case Number: 2211437/2023 26 It looks like Gloria’s contract extension not extended, Dayo has been in touch. It looks like Gloria’s contract extension not extended, Dayo has been in touch. Likely to inflame things I imagine.Likely to inflame things I imagine.

[150]Ms Karabulut said Ms Karabulut said that that she would she would notnot know to know to extendextend the contthe contrract unless told act unless told by HRby HR. She wrote to Mr Kent on 25 April 2023: . She wrote to Mr Kent on 25 April 2023: I hope you are well and thank you for letting me know that. I do not I hope you are well and thank you for letting me know that. I do not understand how this happened but I hope Dayo can sort it out asap to reduce understand how this happened but I hope Dayo can sort it out asap to reduce any inconvenience that any inconvenience that has caused Gloria.has caused Gloria.

[151]The The claimantclaimant did ndid notot receive her salary on the April pay date of 25 April 2023 receive her salary on the April pay date of 25 April 2023 butbut the respondent rectified the problem on the respondent rectified the problem on 3 May 2023 with a supplementary 3 May 2023 with a supplementary pay run.pay run.

[152]On 4 May 2023, the claimant commenced Early Conciliation. On 4 May 2023, the claimant commenced Early Conciliation.

[153]On 5 MOn 5 May 2023, theay 2023, therere was a meeting involving was a meeting involving the claimant, Mr Kent, Mthe claimant, Mr Kent, Mrr Ajibola and Ms Karabulut. This was the meeting described by the claimant as Ajibola and Ms Karabulut. This was the meeting described by the claimant as a a ‘‘meetingmeeting to to answer trumped up chargesanswer trumped up charges’.’.

[154]MrMr Kent said that Kent said that hehe invited the invited the claimantclaimant to a meeting to discuss a matter to a meeting to discuss a matter brought brought to his attention byto his attention by Ms Karabulut Ms Karabulut on behalf on behalf of anotherof another member of staffmember of staff. . There There hadhad been an assertion that the been an assertion that the claimantclaimant had told had told a a foster carer foster carer that the that the child did not need to come to child did not need to come to the Tthe Trust for therapyrust for therapy,, which contradicted which contradicted the the child’s child’s clinical care plan. clinical care plan. A A mmember of ember of the the team raised a concern but team raised a concern but it was it was not a formal complaint or grievancenot a formal complaint or grievance. On 4 April he had written to her and Ms . On 4 April he had written to her and Ms KarabulutKarabulut:: I would like to I would like to meet with you both to discuss the case as I understand there meet with you both to discuss the case as I understand there have been some differences of opinion within the team about the have been some differences of opinion within the team about the management of this case which have started to enter into the child’s therapy management of this case which have started to enter into the child’s therapy material. I also understand that the Local Authority material. I also understand that the Local Authority Social Worker and the Social Worker and the child’s guardian have asked about the matter. My aim is that any professional child’s guardian have asked about the matter. My aim is that any professional differences, institutional issues or dynamics within the team and between differences, institutional issues or dynamics within the team and between colleagues do not adversely effect the child’s experience given the sensitivity, colleagues do not adversely effect the child’s experience given the sensitivity, ttiming and integrity of an international adoption process. I understand that iming and integrity of an international adoption process. I understand that most clinical work involving colleagues is discussed in the team clinical most clinical work involving colleagues is discussed in the team clinical meeting but as the issues in this case may be contentious I thought it would meeting but as the issues in this case may be contentious I thought it would be more appropriate, discreetbe more appropriate, discreet and manageable if we met together. I would like and manageable if we met together. I would like to meet face to face hence giving plenty of notice. Please confirm, with to meet face to face hence giving plenty of notice. Please confirm, with thanks.thanks.

[155]The claimant’s account of what she was asked about at the meeting was quite The claimant’s account of what she was asked about at the meeting was quite differentdifferent from the respondent’s versionfrom the respondent’s version. She said . She said that she was told that the that she was told that the child had told their therapist that the child would ask the claimant to come and child had told their therapist that the child would ask the claimant to come and beat the therapist up. She said that she asked why the therapist in question beat the therapist up. She said that she asked why the therapist in question was not at the meeting.was not at the meeting.

[156]When it was put to MWhen it was put to Mrr Kent that the allegation concerned beating up, he said Kent that the allegation concerned beating up, he said that there were quite a few things in the notes and that there was a statement that there were quite a few things in the notes and that there was a statement Case Number: 2211437/2023 27 about how about how ‘‘Auntie GloriaAuntie Gloria’’ would tell someone off, but there was nothing about would tell someone off, but there was nothing about beating up. beating up.

[157]At the meeting the claimant sAt the meeting the claimant said that aid that the stated the stated narrativenarrative ofof the the childchild could could havehave been been fabricatedfabricated in the clinical recordin the clinical record. The claimant did say. The claimant did say a number of a number of times times in evidence and in her submissions to the Tribunal that she had in evidence and in her submissions to the Tribunal that she had objected to the therapist moving the child’s therapy from objected to the therapist moving the child’s therapy from her school to the her school to the Tavistock due to the Tavistock due to the disruption to the child and her schooling in particular bdisruption to the child and her schooling in particular butut she denied that this was what was discussed at the meeting. she denied that this was what was discussed at the meeting. She did however She did however accept she had accept she had raisedraised it strongly at a team meeting. She said she had not it strongly at a team meeting. She said she had not met the child.met the child.

[158]Ms Karabulut also gave evidence that the discussion was about the child Ms Karabulut also gave evidence that the discussion was about the child saying that the claimant did not support the care plan.saying that the claimant did not support the care plan.

[159]Mr Kent said that the claimant said that the clinicianMr Kent said that the claimant said that the clinician wwho reported the matterho reported the matter was lying, the meeting was unproductive, and he decided not to take the was lying, the meeting was unproductive, and he decided not to take the matter any further.matter any further.

[160]There were emails between Mr Ajibola and Ms Karabulut about the problem There were emails between Mr Ajibola and Ms Karabulut about the problem which had arisen with the claimant’s contract extension. Ms Karabulwhich had arisen with the claimant’s contract extension. Ms Karabulut had not ut had not understood that Mr Ajibola was investigating the matters and felt left out of the understood that Mr Ajibola was investigating the matters and felt left out of the loop. Mr Ajibola wrote: loop. Mr Ajibola wrote: I am also aware that not just clinicians experience issues relating to contract I am also aware that not just clinicians experience issues relating to contract extension, and it is a concern for all staff groups acrosextension, and it is a concern for all staff groups across the organisation. Both s the organisation. Both Tim and I have discussed with Gloria that this was not a deliberate or targeted Tim and I have discussed with Gloria that this was not a deliberate or targeted act towards her. We have also assured Gloria that these administrative errors act towards her. We have also assured Gloria that these administrative errors would be investigated to ensure it does not happen in the future, we beliwould be investigated to ensure it does not happen in the future, we believe eve this matter is closed. Again, I am not in control of Gloria mentioning this matter this matter is closed. Again, I am not in control of Gloria mentioning this matter occasionally, all we can do is reiterate our position. Regarding the fixed term occasionally, all we can do is reiterate our position. Regarding the fixed term monthly report, the HR advisers send out reports to the senior managers and monthly report, the HR advisers send out reports to the senior managers and we expect thiwe expect this to be disseminated by the senior managers across their s to be disseminated by the senior managers across their relevant service lines. If you are not receiving this report and the general relevant service lines. If you are not receiving this report and the general managers are not receiving these reports either, I would need to be informed managers are not receiving these reports either, I would need to be informed so that I can investigate further.so that I can investigate further.

[161]Ms Ms Karabulut Karabulut wrotewrote:: Regarding monitoring the contract deadline, I do not Regarding monitoring the contract deadline, I do not have the list of contract deadlines, however, if I am given the list, I am happy have the list of contract deadlines, however, if I am given the list, I am happy to monitor this to prevent any of the team members experiencing hardship to monitor this to prevent any of the team members experiencing hardship due to the possibility of not bdue to the possibility of not being paid.eing paid.

[162]We note that we considered it was improbable Ms Karabulut would have We note that we considered it was improbable Ms Karabulut would have written to Mr Ajibola that she had not been receiving the contract deadline list written to Mr Ajibola that she had not been receiving the contract deadline list if in fact she had been receiving it because there would no doubt have been if in fact she had been receiving it because there would no doubt have been evidence that she evidence that she had been sent it in the form of emails. had been sent it in the form of emails.

[163]On On 12 May 202312 May 2023, there was a , there was a team meeting team meeting at which the claimant at which the claimant said said that that someone had told a racist joke at someone had told a racist joke at an an earlier meeting.earlier meeting. This was a reference to This was a reference to the monkey anecdote incident. the monkey anecdote incident. The claimant said that DrThe claimant said that Dr Shaw wShaw was as the the Case Number: 2211437/2023 28 ringleader. ringleader. DrDr Shaw apologiseShaw apologisedd for offending for offending the claimantthe claimant. . The claimant said The claimant said that she said that she said at the meeting at the meeting that she held the others complicit as they had that she held the others complicit as they had laughed but that no one else apologized. laughed but that no one else apologized.

[164]There was a disagreement between the There was a disagreement between the partiesparties as to how the as to how the claimantclaimant responded to the apologyresponded to the apology. Dr Shaw said that the claimant . Dr Shaw said that the claimant saidsaid:: ‘‘TThank you hank you that means a lot to methat means a lot to me..’’ Ms Karabulut and Mr Kent agreed with that account. Ms Karabulut and Mr Kent agreed with that account. The claimant denied that she had thanThe claimant denied that she had thanked Dr Shaw. Ultimately nothing really ked Dr Shaw. Ultimately nothing really turned on this issue but we concluded that the claimant had thanked Dr Shaw turned on this issue but we concluded that the claimant had thanked Dr Shaw but did not recall doing so. but did not recall doing so.

[165]On 14 May 2023, the claimant raised a On 14 May 2023, the claimant raised a complaint in an email to Ms Kcomplaint in an email to Ms Kaarabulutrabulut:: This is to register my This is to register my displeasure at being asked what amounted to private displeasure at being asked what amounted to private questions at the team meeting in front of others. I have always worked with questions at the team meeting in front of others. I have always worked with adults could not understand why you were asking me to do child observation. adults could not understand why you were asking me to do child observation. Child observation is a specialist activity where youChild observation is a specialist activity where you not only observe but are not only observe but are able to interpret what is going on. You asked why I could not do it. I then had able to interpret what is going on. You asked why I could not do it. I then had to mention something about my medical statusto mention something about my medical status..

[166]She also complained about lack of work being allocated to her and being She also complained about lack of work being allocated to her and being asked to work outside of her conasked to work outside of her contracted days. tracted days.

[167]On 19 May 2023, the claimant submitted a grievance to Ms Karabulut:On 19 May 2023, the claimant submitted a grievance to Ms Karabulut: As per the Tavistock and Portman Grievance procedure I hereby make a As per the Tavistock and Portman Grievance procedure I hereby make a formal complaint for several issues that has happened to me in the recent formal complaint for several issues that has happened to me in the recent past. past.• My salary not paid

• My salary not paid for the consecutive months of August, September, and for the consecutive months of August, September, and October 2022. October 2022.

• Not having had supervision since October 2022

• Case/parenting work not being allocated to me for well over a year.

• The team making racist jokes at a Team meeting.

• The repeated

• The repeated breaches of my confidentiality.breaches of my confidentiality. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the issues that I have faced and This is by no means an exhaustive list of the issues that I have faced and continue to face in the team. However, for now I want a detailed explanation continue to face in the team. However, for now I want a detailed explanation of the reasons behind the above points. I want to have of the reasons behind the above points. I want to have detailed, believable, detailed, believable, and verifiable answers.and verifiable answers.

[168]On On 23 May 202323 May 2023, Mr , Mr AjibolaAjibola wrote to the claimant to tell wrote to the claimant to tell her her howhow her her grievance would be dealt with:grievance would be dealt with: Your complaints are covered both under the grievance policy and procedure Your complaints are covered both under the grievance policy and procedure and the bullying and harassment procedure. The concerns relating to your and the bullying and harassment procedure. The concerns relating to your salary not paid for the consecutive months of August, September and October salary not paid for the consecutive months of August, September and October 2022, lack of supervision since O2022, lack of supervision since October 2022 and not being allocate ctober 2022 and not being allocate case/parenting work for over a year, are covered under the grievance case/parenting work for over a year, are covered under the grievance Case Number: 2211437/2023 29 procedure. These are all concerns relating to the terms and conditions of your procedure. These are all concerns relating to the terms and conditions of your employment arising at work. The concerns you raised relating to the team employment arising at work. The concerns you raised relating to the team making racist jokes at a team meeting making racist jokes at a team meeting will bewill be covered under the Trust Bullying covered under the Trust Bullying & Harassment procedure. This concern relates to unwanted conduct that & Harassment procedure. This concern relates to unwanted conduct that violates your dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating violates your dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.or offensive environment.

[169]Mr Mr KentKent was was asked asked by Mr Ajibola by Mr Ajibola to consider to consider the the partpartss of the claimant’sof the claimant’s grievance grievance about about paypay, , supervisionsupervision, not being allocated , not being allocated workwork andand breachbreach of of confidentialityconfidentiality..

[170]On 14 June 2023, Mr Kent wrOn 14 June 2023, Mr Kent wroote to the claimant:te to the claimant: I mentioned that I had found a new supervisor and wanted to introduce you to I mentioned that I had found a new supervisor and wanted to introduce you to Trinidad by email in the first instance. Trinidad, known as Trini is a Consultant Trinidad by email in the first instance. Trinidad, known as Trini is a Consultant Social Worker and has a wealth of relevant experience in Tavistock and Social Worker and has a wealth of relevant experience in Tavistock and associated services , thisassociated services , this includes a significant experience working in families includes a significant experience working in families in or on the edge of care, vulnerable children and families, trauma, migration in or on the edge of care, vulnerable children and families, trauma, migration and a host of other issues that I think are close to the heart of the returning and a host of other issues that I think are close to the heart of the returning families team. I acknowledge that you havefamilies team. I acknowledge that you have had a gap in clinical supervision had a gap in clinical supervision support and a limited caseload. I hope it will be possible for you and Trinidad support and a limited caseload. I hope it will be possible for you and Trinidad to meet and set up an agreement about a monthly supervision focussing on to meet and set up an agreement about a monthly supervision focussing on your clinical work, not line management or other aspects. I copy Hulyour clinical work, not line management or other aspects. I copy Hulya as your ya as your team and line manager. I suspect it may be best / easiest to consider an team and line manager. I suspect it may be best / easiest to consider an online meeting but might also work best if you are able to meet at least once, online meeting but might also work best if you are able to meet at least once, initially, in person. initially, in person.

[171]On 28 June 2023, the claimant’s Early Conciliation certificate was isOn 28 June 2023, the claimant’s Early Conciliation certificate was issued.sued.

[172]On 29 June 2023, terms of reference were drafted for the 19 May 2023 On 29 June 2023, terms of reference were drafted for the 19 May 2023 grievance. That same day the claimant was provided with the grievance grievance. That same day the claimant was provided with the grievance terms of reference and informed that Mr Kent would be investigating the parts terms of reference and informed that Mr Kent would be investigating the parts of the grievance which related of the grievance which related to her terms of employment.to her terms of employment.

[173]On 4 July 2023, the claimant presented her clOn 4 July 2023, the claimant presented her claiaim form to the Tribunal. m form to the Tribunal.

[174]On 7 July 2023, MrOn 7 July 2023, Mr Kent contacted the claimant suggesting that they meet to Kent contacted the claimant suggesting that they meet to discuss her grievance. He also raised the issue of making an occupational discuss her grievance. He also raised the issue of making an occupational health referral to understand whether the claimant was able to do face to face health referral to understand whether the claimant was able to do face to face work.work.

[175]On On 12 July 202312 July 2023, the claimant wrote to, the claimant wrote to Mr Kent saying that it wasMr Kent saying that it was not not appropriate for him to hear appropriate for him to hear her grievanceher grievance, , raising concerns about how the raising concerns about how the matter was being investigated and about the suggestion that she matter was being investigated and about the suggestion that she have an have an occupational health appointment.occupational health appointment.

[176]Also on Also on 1122 July 2023, July 2023, MsMs Merchant became aware Merchant became aware oof the claimant’s DSAR f the claimant’s DSAR and subsequently made enquiries with her team to understand why it had not and subsequently made enquiries with her team to understand why it had not previously been drawn to her attention as she is the person who deals with previously been drawn to her attention as she is the person who deals with the requests. She was told that the HR Advisor who had the rthe requests. She was told that the HR Advisor who had the request had equest had Case Number: 2211437/2023 30 missed responding as they had gone on annual leave. She received the missed responding as they had gone on annual leave. She received the request on 20 July 2023 and told the team that they should make sure that request on 20 July 2023 and told the team that they should make sure that DSARs were referred to her so she could log them and ensure they were DSARs were referred to her so she could log them and ensure they were dealt with within the legal timedealt with within the legal timeframes. frames.

[177]On On 1818 July 2023, MsJuly 2023, Ms A A NurseNurse, communications and engagement manager, , communications and engagement manager, was was appointed to investigateappointed to investigate thethe bullying and harassment elements of bullying and harassment elements of the the claimantclaimant’s’s grievance.grievance.

[178]On On 19 19 JulyJuly 20232023, Ms, Ms Nurse contacted the claimant to arrange to meet with Nurse contacted the claimant to arrange to meet with her. The claimant said that she would prefer to answer questions by email and her. The claimant said that she would prefer to answer questions by email and thethenn meet afterwards. There followed correspondence about the claimant meet afterwards. There followed correspondence about the claimant providing answers and Ms Nurse told the providing answers and Ms Nurse told the claimantclaimant thatthat she would need the she would need the answersanswers by 4 August 2023. The claimant said that she had many things to do by 4 August 2023. The claimant said that she had many things to do and was and was highlyhighly stressed and not very well. Ms stressed and not very well. Ms Nurse replied that she would Nurse replied that she would need the responses by that date in order to produce the report on time and need the responses by that date in order to produce the report on time and meet deadlimeet deadlines she had been givenes she had been given. The claimantn. The claimant said said that that she had many she had many other things to do and did nother things to do and did notot think it would be done by 4think it would be done by 4thth.. She had to look She had to look after her wellbeing firstafter her wellbeing first..

[179]On On 27 July 202327 July 2023, the claimant was sent an email by , the claimant was sent an email by Ms S Ms S BBelavadielavadi from HRfrom HR advisingadvising hher to tell er to tell her her manager manager if she wasif she was unwell and giving her information unwell and giving her information about about the the Employee Assistance Service and other resources. Employee Assistance Service and other resources. She gave the She gave the claimant a claimant a deadline of 4 August deadline of 4 August 2023 2023 to accord with timescales in to accord with timescales in the the respondent’s Bullying and Harasrespondent’s Bullying and Harassment policy. sment policy. policy. policy. She offered the claimant She offered the claimant thethe option of option of an an in person interview insteadin person interview instead..

[180]The claimant replied saying that The claimant replied saying that this this email email was was harassing and that she was harassing and that she was nnotot well and ‘will not let this issue jump the queue of what I have to do just to well and ‘will not let this issue jump the queue of what I have to do just to pleaplease the Tavistock.’se the Tavistock.’

[181]MsMs Nurse in the meantime commenced investigating with others about the Nurse in the meantime commenced investigating with others about the claimant’s grievances, including conducting an investigation meeting with Dr claimant’s grievances, including conducting an investigation meeting with Dr Shaw on 4 August 2023 about the monkey anecdote incident. Shaw on 4 August 2023 about the monkey anecdote incident.

[182]Ultimately the claimant did not provide a responseUltimately the claimant did not provide a response and Ms Belavadi wrote to and Ms Belavadi wrote to her on 21 August 2023 to say that the matter would be closed but if she her on 21 August 2023 to say that the matter would be closed but if she wished the matter to be reopened in future, wished the matter to be reopened in future, sshe should contact the HR team he should contact the HR team in writing. in writing.

[183]Meanwhile on Meanwhile on 25 July 202325 July 2023, Mr , Mr Kent wrKent wrote to the claimantote to the claimant responding responding iin n detail detail to her to her 12 July 2023 email12 July 2023 email. He said he would press ahead investigating . He said he would press ahead investigating her complaints unless the claimant wanted Ms Karabulut to deal with it more her complaints unless the claimant wanted Ms Karabulut to deal with it more directly, perhaps by way of a mediated meeting. He had understood the directly, perhaps by way of a mediated meeting. He had understood the claimant to be saying she wanteclaimant to be saying she wanted Ms Karabulut to deal with the matters rather d Ms Karabulut to deal with the matters rather than him.than him. Case Number: 2211437/2023 31

[184]After a number of attempts to meet with the claimant, Mr Kent was advised by After a number of attempts to meet with the claimant, Mr Kent was advised by HR that he did not need to take the matter further. He HR that he did not need to take the matter further. He told the Tribunal that he told the Tribunal that he thought that the matter was closed around September 2023. thought that the matter was closed around September 2023.

[185]On 1 August 2023, Ms Merchant wrote to the claimant apologising for the On 1 August 2023, Ms Merchant wrote to the claimant apologising for the delay in responding to her DSAR and saying that she was now pursuing the delay in responding to her DSAR and saying that she was now pursuing the request and would keep her updated on progress. request and would keep her updated on progress.

[186]On On 16 August16 August 2023, the claimant wrote to Mr Ajibola making her complaint 2023, the claimant wrote to Mr Ajibola making her complaint about Mr Kent’s involvement in her grievance clearer:about Mr Kent’s involvement in her grievance clearer: I previously let you know that I am not happy that Tim Kent will be handling I previously let you know that I am not happy that Tim Kent will be handling any part of my complaint. any part of my complaint. This is to confirm my s This is to confirm my stance on this matter. I will not be taking part in any tance on this matter. I will not be taking part in any investigation if he is the person carrying it out. I say this for a number of investigation if he is the person carrying it out. I say this for a number of reasons. reasons. Firstly, he is too close to the issues and from precedent my opinion is that he Firstly, he is too close to the issues and from precedent my opinion is that he is not wholly objective. is not wholly objective. He beli He believes everything that Hulya says despite the fact that it has been eves everything that Hulya says despite the fact that it has been proven that she lied in the past. She denied to Time proven that she lied in the past. She denied to Time [sic] [sic] that she breached that she breached my confidentiality at a team meeting. Tim asked for themy confidentiality at a team meeting. Tim asked for the minutes and none was minutes and none was forthcoming as at that time and for forthcoming as at that time and for a period on one year team meetings were a period on one year team meetings were not being taken down. They have now been botched with the minimum of not being taken down. They have now been botched with the minimum of sentences that were made up. How can you write down with any accuracy sentences that were made up. How can you write down with any accuracy what happened a year ago? what happened a year ago? The truth was only revealed when I challenged her (Hulya) publicly at a team The truth was only revealed when I challenged her (Hulya) publicly at a team meeting and she apologised but in a subsequent email to me Tim was still meeting and she apologised but in a subsequent email to me Tim was still promoting her version of events. promoting her version of events. Secondly, Tim has investigated the nonpayment of my salary last year and Secondly, Tim has investigated the nonpayment of my salary last year and came to the conclusion that it was the fault of HMRC. came to the conclusion that it was the fault of HMRC. I mentioned the racist jokes made at a team meeting at that meeting you I mentioned the racist jokes made at a team meeting at that meeting you attended where they were trying to pin something on me. attended where they were trying to pin something on me. Hulya immediately Hulya immediately said something along the lines of said something along the lines of -- you did not say anything you did not say anything -- referring to me. referring to me. All Tim did was to again ask for the team minutes. I wondered aloud how All Tim did was to again ask for the team minutes. I wondered aloud how anybody would think that people will record that they were joking about anybody would think that people will record that they were joking about wicked Africanwicked African Monkeys in minutes. Monkeys in minutes. That would have been the end of the issue but for the fact that I again That would have been the end of the issue but for the fact that I again confronted them in public at a reflective practice meeting where I got an confronted them in public at a reflective practice meeting where I got an apology. He was therefore surprised when I raised a grievance shortly after. apology. He was therefore surprised when I raised a grievance shortly after. Apologies dApologies do not mean a thing here o not mean a thing here --I received an apology after I was not I received an apology after I was not paid for 3 months last year but in a couple of months it happened again. I had paid for 3 months last year but in a couple of months it happened again. I had to do something because who is to say that sometime later something worse to do something because who is to say that sometime later something worse would not have happened. If all my complwould not have happened. If all my complaints over the years had been acted aints over the years had been acted on it would never have reached this point. It is my contention that the on it would never have reached this point. It is my contention that the Tavistock empowered them to do it. Tavistock empowered them to do it. Case Number: 2211437/2023 32 Thirdly, As I had done over the years, I again complained to Tim that I was not Thirdly, As I had done over the years, I again complained to Tim that I was not being allocated work. being allocated work. Especiall Especially when Ellen left, and Hulya prepared a new work list. I even sent y when Ellen left, and Hulya prepared a new work list. I even sent Tim a copy of it. Nothing happened. He even agreed with Hulya that the work Tim a copy of it. Nothing happened. He even agreed with Hulya that the work I have been allocated is commensurate with my role and experience. As I have been allocated is commensurate with my role and experience. As usual, things suddenly took 360 degrees abousual, things suddenly took 360 degrees about turn when there was a rumour ut turn when there was a rumour that I was about to take action. It has turned ugly. So much so that my that I was about to take action. It has turned ugly. So much so that my resilience over the years despite the barrage of racism directed at me is resilience over the years despite the barrage of racism directed at me is wearing very thing. I am not well. I am seriously ill. wearing very thing. I am not well. I am seriously ill. Fourthly, Tim invited Fourthly, Tim invited me to a meeting to find out 'what my role would be going me to a meeting to find out 'what my role would be going forward'. I was baffled, what did that mean? He started of by giving me a forward'. I was baffled, what did that mean? He started of by giving me a personal analogy about him leaving a local authority team in the past because personal analogy about him leaving a local authority team in the past because the work they did was too close to home for hithe work they did was too close to home for him. In that case he was advising m. In that case he was advising me to leave because in his opinion I am vocal about the work because I am me to leave because in his opinion I am vocal about the work because I am an ISIS sympathise who came back from Syria. That was how I interpreted it. an ISIS sympathise who came back from Syria. That was how I interpreted it. I was astounded. I was astounded. I know for sure that Tim wants me to go and so does Huly I know for sure that Tim wants me to go and so does Hulya, how far up the a, how far up the ladder this goes I do not know. ladder this goes I do not know. Fifth, I was shouting from the roof tops that the last time I had supervision was Fifth, I was shouting from the roof tops that the last time I had supervision was on the 27th of October on the 27th of October 2022, Tim said nothing for a long time, then started looking for somebody and 2022, Tim said nothing for a long time, then started looking for somebody and then paused for 2 mothen paused for 2 months. I now have a supervisor and our first meeting nths. I now have a supervisor and our first meeting would be tomorrow after the last one failed to go ahead. However, the would be tomorrow after the last one failed to go ahead. However, the damage has been done. Great damage has been done to my health. I have damage has been done. Great damage has been done to my health. I have been left with no support for all these months with work that been left with no support for all these months with work that is highly intense is highly intense and emotionally draining. That nobody noticed that I was not being supervised and emotionally draining. That nobody noticed that I was not being supervised until I brought it up is either discrimination against me or a gross failure of until I brought it up is either discrimination against me or a gross failure of management. I am also beginning to wonder if somebody ordered the management. I am also beginning to wonder if somebody ordered the supervision ssupervision sessions to stop. essions to stop. I am supposed to take part in an investigation where there is no terms of I am supposed to take part in an investigation where there is no terms of reference and no time frame given. Would it just be an openreference and no time frame given. Would it just be an open--ended sham as ended sham as usual. usual.

[187]On On 29 August 202329 August 2023, Mr Ajibola responded to the claimant’s email, saying that , Mr Ajibola responded to the claimant’s email, saying that Mr KeMr Kent would continue as the investigating officer to review the claimant’s nt would continue as the investigating officer to review the claimant’s grievance. He did not engage with all of the concerns the claimant had grievance. He did not engage with all of the concerns the claimant had expressed about Mr Kent’s suitability, given his previous involvement.expressed about Mr Kent’s suitability, given his previous involvement.

[188]On On 25 August 202325 August 2023, Ms, Ms Merchant emailed the Merchant emailed the cclaimant laimant to say the claimant’s to say the claimant’s DSAR information had been posted to her by recorded delivery. She asked DSAR information had been posted to her by recorded delivery. She asked the claimant to confirm receipt In fact it appeared that the the claimant to confirm receipt In fact it appeared that the claimantclaimant did ndid notot receivreceive e the documents by post on this occasion but the documents by post on this occasion but sheshe did did not tellnot tell MMs s Merchant that she had not received them. Merchant that she had not received them.

[189]Ms Merchant said that Ms Merchant said that she subsequently she subsequently became aware that the claimant had became aware that the claimant had not seen the documents and she wrote to the claimant on 7 November 2023 not seen the documents and she wrote to the claimant on 7 November 2023 saying that she was arranging for the documentsaying that she was arranging for the documents to be res to be re--sent. sent. Case Number: 2211437/2023 33 Law Law Direct discrimination Direct discrimination

Law

[190]Direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 occurs when a Direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 occurs when a person treats another:person treats another: - - Less favourably than that person treats a person who does not share that Less favourably than that person treats a person who does not share that protected characteristic;protected characteristic; - - Because of Because of that protected characteristic.that protected characteristic.

[191]In a direct discrimination case, where the treatment of which the claimant In a direct discrimination case, where the treatment of which the claimant complains is not overtly because of the protected characteristic, the key complains is not overtly because of the protected characteristic, the key question is the “reason why” the decision or action of the respondent was question is the “reason why” the decision or action of the respondent was ttaken. This involves consideration of mental processes of the individual aken. This involves consideration of mental processes of the individual responsible; see for example the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal responsible; see for example the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in in Amnesty International v Ahmed Amnesty International v Ahmed

[2009] IRLR 884

at paragraphs 31 to 37

[2009] IRLR 884

at paragraphs 31 to 37 and the authorities there discussed.and the authorities there discussed. The The protected characteristic need not be protected characteristic need not be the main reason for the treatment, so long as it is an ‘effective cause': the main reason for the treatment, so long as it is an ‘effective cause': O'Neill O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntarily Aided Upper v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntarily Aided Upper School and anor School and anor

[1996] IRLR 372

[192]This exercise must be approaThis exercise must be approached in accordance with the burden of proof ched in accordance with the burden of proof provisions applying to Equality Act claims. This is found in section 136: “(2) if provisions applying to Equality Act claims. This is found in section 136: “(2) if there are facts from which the Court could decide, in the absence of any other there are facts from which the Court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that person (A) contravened the proviexplanation, that person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the Court sion concerned, the Court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) but subsection (2) does not must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) but subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision. “apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision. “

[193]Guidelines were set out by the Court of Appeal in Guidelines were set out by the Court of Appeal in Igen Ltd v WongIgen Ltd v Wong [2005]

[2005] EWCA Civ 142

;

[2005] EWCA Civ 142

;

[2005] IRLR 258

regarding the burden of proof (in the context IRLR 258 regarding the burden of proof (in the context of cases under the then Sex Discrimination Act 1975). They are as follows:of cases under the then Sex Discrimination Act 1975). They are as follows:(1) Pursuant to s.63A of the SDA, it is for the claimant who complains of (1) Pursuant to s.63A of the SDA, it is for the claimant who complains of sex discrimination to prove on the balance of probasex discrimination to prove on the balance of probabilities facts from which bilities facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent has committed an act of discrimination against the that the respondent has committed an act of discrimination against the claimant which is unlawful by virtue of Part II or which by virtue of s.41 or claimant which is unlawful by virtue of Part II or which by virtue of s.41 or s.42 of ts.42 of the SDA is to be treated as having been committed against the he SDA is to be treated as having been committed against the claimant. These are referred to below as 'such facts'.claimant. These are referred to below as 'such facts'.

(2) If the claimant does not prove such facts he or she will fail.(2) If the claimant does not prove such facts he or she will fail.

(3) It is important to bear in mind in deciding whether the (3) It is important to bear in mind in deciding whether the claimant has claimant has proved such facts that it is unusual to find direct evidence of sex proved such facts that it is unusual to find direct evidence of sex discrimination. Few employers would be prepared to admit such discrimination. Few employers would be prepared to admit such discrimination, even to themselves. In some cases the discrimination will discrimination, even to themselves. In some cases the discrimination will not be an intention but merely based onnot be an intention but merely based on the assumption that 'he or she the assumption that 'he or she would not have fitted in'.would not have fitted in'. Case Number: 2211437/2023 34

(4) In deciding whether the claimant has proved such facts, it is important (4) In deciding whether the claimant has proved such facts, it is important to remember that the outcome at this stage of the analysis by the tribunal to remember that the outcome at this stage of the analysis by the tribunal will therefore usually depend on what inferenwill therefore usually depend on what inferences it is proper to draw from ces it is proper to draw from the primary facts found by the tribunal.the primary facts found by the tribunal.

(5) It is important to note the word 'could' in s.63A(2). At this stage the (5) It is important to note the word 'could' in s.63A(2). At this stage the tribunal does not have to reach a definitive determination that such facts tribunal does not have to reach a definitive determination that such facts would lead it to the conclusion twould lead it to the conclusion that there was an act of unlawful hat there was an act of unlawful discrimination. At this stage a tribunal is looking at the primary facts before discrimination. At this stage a tribunal is looking at the primary facts before it to see what inferences of secondary fact could be drawn from them.it to see what inferences of secondary fact could be drawn from them.

(6) In considering what inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the (6) In considering what inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the primary facts, the tribunal must assume that there is no adequate primary facts, the tribunal must assume that there is no adequate explanation for those facts.explanation for those facts.

(7) These inferences can include, in appropriate cases, any inferences that (7) These inferences can include, in appropriate cases, any inferences that it is just and equitable to draw in accordance with s.74(2)(b) of the SDA it is just and equitable to draw in accordance with s.74(2)(b) of the SDA from an evfrom an evasive or equivocal reply to a questionnaire or any other asive or equivocal reply to a questionnaire or any other questions that fall within s.74(2) of the SDA.questions that fall within s.74(2) of the SDA.

(8) Likewise, the tribunal must decide whether any provision of any (8) Likewise, the tribunal must decide whether any provision of any relevant code of practice is relevant and if so, take it into account in relevant code of practice is relevant and if so, take it into account in determinindetermining, such facts pursuant to s.56A(10) of the SDA. This means that g, such facts pursuant to s.56A(10) of the SDA. This means that inferences may also be drawn from any failure to comply with any relevant inferences may also be drawn from any failure to comply with any relevant code of practice.code of practice.

(9) Where the claimant has proved facts from which conclusions could be (9) Where the claimant has proved facts from which conclusions could be drawn that the respondent hdrawn that the respondent has treated the claimant less favourably on the as treated the claimant less favourably on the ground of sex, then the burden of proof moves to the respondent.ground of sex, then the burden of proof moves to the respondent.

(10) It is then for the respondent to prove that he did not commit, or as the (10) It is then for the respondent to prove that he did not commit, or as the case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act.case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act.

(11) To discharge that burden it is necessary for the respondent to prove, (11) To discharge that burden it is necessary for the respondent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was in no sense on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever on the grounds of sex, since 'no discrimination whatsoever' is whatsoever on the grounds of sex, since 'no discrimination whatsoever' is compatible with the Burden of Proof Dicompatible with the Burden of Proof Directive.rective.

(12) That requires a tribunal to assess not merely whether the respondent (12) That requires a tribunal to assess not merely whether the respondent has proved an explanation for the facts from which such inferences can be has proved an explanation for the facts from which such inferences can be drawn, but further that it is adequate to discharge the burden of proof on drawn, but further that it is adequate to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilthe balance of probabilities that sex was not a ground for the treatment in ities that sex was not a ground for the treatment in question.question.

(13) Since the facts necessary to prove an explanation would normally be (13) Since the facts necessary to prove an explanation would normally be in the possession of the respondent, a tribunal would normally expect in the possession of the respondent, a tribunal would normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden of cogent evidence to discharge that burden of proof. In particular, the tribunal proof. In particular, the tribunal will need to examine carefully explanations for failure to deal with the will need to examine carefully explanations for failure to deal with the questionnaire procedure and/or code of practice.questionnaire procedure and/or code of practice. Case Number: 2211437/2023 35

[194]We bear in mind the guidance of We bear in mind the guidance of Lord Justice Mummery in Lord Justice Mummery in MadarassyMadarassy, where , where he stated: ‘The bare facthe stated: ‘The bare facts of a difference in status and a difference in s of a difference in status and a difference in treatment only indicate a possibility of discrimination. They are not, without treatment only indicate a possibility of discrimination. They are not, without more, sufficient material from which a tribunal “could conclude” that, on the more, sufficient material from which a tribunal “could conclude” that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent had commitbalance of probabilities, the respondent had committed an unlawful act of ted an unlawful act of discrimination.discrimination.’ The ‘something more’ need not be a great deal; in some ’ The ‘something more’ need not be a great deal; in some instances it may be furnished by the context in which the discriminatory act instances it may be furnished by the context in which the discriminatory act has allegedly occurred: has allegedly occurred: Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights and orsand ors 202010 EWCA Civ 1279, CA.10 EWCA Civ 1279, CA.

[195]The tribunal cannot take into account the respondent’s explanation for the The tribunal cannot take into account the respondent’s explanation for the alleged discrimination in determining whether the claimant has established a alleged discrimination in determining whether the claimant has established a prima facie case so as to shift the burden of proof. (prima facie case so as to shift the burden of proof. (Laing v Manchester City Laing v Manchester City CoCouncil and othersuncil and others

[2006] IRLR 748

;

[2006] IRLR 748

; Madarassy v Nomura International plcMadarassy v Nomura International plc

[2007] IRLR 246

, CA.)

[2007] IRLR 246

, CA.)

[196]The distinction between explanations and the facts adduced which may form The distinction between explanations and the facts adduced which may form part of those explanations is not a water tight division part of those explanations is not a water tight division LaingLaing vv ManchesterManchester CityCity CounciCouncill andand anoranor 20062006 ICRICR 1519,1519, EATEAT. The fact that inconsistent . The fact that inconsistent explanations are given for conduct may be taken into account in considering explanations are given for conduct may be taken into account in considering whether the burden has shifted; the substance and quality of those whether the burden has shifted; the substance and quality of those explanations are taken into account at the second stage: explanations are taken into account at the second stage: Veolia Veolia Environmental ServiEnvironmental Services UK v Gumbsces UK v Gumbs EAT 0487/12.EAT 0487/12. InIn CommissionerCommissioner ofof PolicePolice ofof thethe MetropolisMetropolis vv DenbyDenby EATEAT 0314/160314/16 the EAT confirmed that a the EAT confirmed that a tribunal may consider all relevant evidence at the first stage of the burden of tribunal may consider all relevant evidence at the first stage of the burden of proof exercise, even if some of it is of an explanatory natproof exercise, even if some of it is of an explanatory nature and emanates ure and emanates from the employer, whether or not it is called by the employer. The case law from the employer, whether or not it is called by the employer. The case law did not require the tribunal at the first stage to ‘blind itself to evasive, did not require the tribunal at the first stage to ‘blind itself to evasive, economical or untruthful evidence’ from the employer which may help the economical or untruthful evidence’ from the employer which may help the tribunal to dtribunal to decide that there are sufficient facts to shift the burden on to the ecide that there are sufficient facts to shift the burden on to the employer to provide an explanation.employer to provide an explanation. 197.197. In In ChiefChief ConstableConstable ofof KentKent ConstabularyConstabulary vv BowlerBowler EATEAT 0214/160214/16 Mrs Justice Mrs Justice Simler said that: ‘Simler said that: ‘It is critical in discrimination cases that tribunals avoidIt is critical in discrimination cases that tribunals avoid a a mechanistic approach to the drawing of inferences, which is simply part of the mechanistic approach to the drawing of inferences, which is simply part of the factfact--finding process. All explanations identified in the evidence that might finding process. All explanations identified in the evidence that might realistically explain the reason for the treatment by the alleged discriminator realistically explain the reason for the treatment by the alleged discriminator should be consideshould be considered. These may be explanations relied on by the alleged red. These may be explanations relied on by the alleged discriminator, if accepted as genuine by a tribunal; or they may be discriminator, if accepted as genuine by a tribunal; or they may be explanations that arise from a tribunal’s own findings.’explanations that arise from a tribunal’s own findings.’

[198]Although unreasonable treatment without more will not cause the Although unreasonable treatment without more will not cause the burden of burden of proof to shift (proof to shift (Glasgow City Council v Zafar [Glasgow City Council v Zafar

[1998] ICR 120

, HL1998] ICR 120, HL), unexplained ), unexplained unreasonable treatment may:unreasonable treatment may: Bahl v Law SocietyBahl v Law Society

[2003] IRLR 640

, EAT.

[2003] IRLR 640

, EAT.

[199]We remind ourselves that it is important not to approach the burden of proof in We remind ourselves that it is important not to approach the burden of proof in a mechanistic waya mechanistic way and that our focus must be on whether we can properly and that our focus must be on whether we can properly and fairly infer discrimination: and fairly infer discrimination: Laing v Manchester City Council and anorLaing v Manchester City Council and anor Case Number: 2211437/2023 36

[2006] ICR 1519

, EAT. If we can make clear positive findings as to an

[2006] ICR 1519

, EAT. If we can make clear positive findings as to an employer’s motivation, we need not revert to the burden oemployer’s motivation, we need not revert to the burden of proof at all: f proof at all: Martin Martin v Devonshires Solicitorsv Devonshires Solicitors

[2011] ICR 352

, EAT.

[2011] ICR 352

, EAT. Harassment Harassment

[200]Under s 26 Equality Act 2010, a person harasses a claimant if he or she Under s 26 Equality Act 2010, a person harasses a claimant if he or she engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the and the conduct has the purpose or effect of(i) violating the claimant’s dignity, purpose or effect of (i) violating the claimant’s dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant. In deciding whether conduct has such an effect, environment for the claimant. In deciding whether conduct has such an effect, each of the following must be taken intoeach of the following must be taken into account: (a) the claimant’s account: (a) the claimant’s perception; (b) the other circumstances of the case; and (c) whether it is perception; (b) the other circumstances of the case; and (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

[201]By virtue of s 212, conduct which amounts to harassment cannot also be By virtue of s 212, conduct which amounts to harassment cannot also be direct discrimination under sdirect discrimination under s 113.3.

[202]In In Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v DhaliwalRichmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal

[2012] IRLR 336

, EAT, Underhill

[2012] IRLR 336

, EAT, Underhill JJ gave this guidance in relation to harassment in the context of a race gave this guidance in relation to harassment in the context of a race harassment claim:harassment claim: ‘an employer should not be held liable merely because his conduct has ‘an employer should not be held liable merely because his conduct has had the effect of phad the effect of producing a proscribed consequence. It should be roducing a proscribed consequence. It should be reasonable that that consequence has occurred. The claimant must reasonable that that consequence has occurred. The claimant must have felt, or perceived, her dignity to have been violated or an adverse have felt, or perceived, her dignity to have been violated or an adverse environment to have been created, but the tribunal is required to environment to have been created, but the tribunal is required to consconsider whether, if the claimant has experienced those feelings or ider whether, if the claimant has experienced those feelings or perceptions, it was reasonable for her to do so……..Not every racially perceptions, it was reasonable for her to do so……..Not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a person's dignity. Dignity is not necessarily violatedperson's dignity. Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that any offence was unintended. While it is very important that employers any offence was unintended. While it is very important that employers and tribunals are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by racially and tribunals are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by racially offensive coffensive comments or conduct (or indeed comments or conduct on omments or conduct (or indeed comments or conduct on other discriminatory grounds) it is also important not to encourage a other discriminatory grounds) it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.’every unfortunate phrase.’

[203]An ‘environment’ may be creAn ‘environment’ may be created by a single incident, provided the effects ated by a single incident, provided the effects are of sufficient duration: are of sufficient duration: Weeks v Newham College of Further EducationWeeks v Newham College of Further Education EAT 0630/11EAT 0630/11.. Victimisation Victimisation Case Number: 2211437/2023 37

[204]Under s 27 Equality Act 2010 a person victimises another person if they Under s 27 Equality Act 2010 a person victimises another person if they subject that person to a detriment bsubject that person to a detriment because that person has done a protected ecause that person has done a protected act or the person doing the victimising believes that person has done or may act or the person doing the victimising believes that person has done or may do a protected act.do a protected act.

[205]The definition of a protected act includes the making of an allegation that the The definition of a protected act includes the making of an allegation that the person subsequently person subsequently subjecting the claimant to a detriment (or another subjecting the claimant to a detriment (or another person) has contravened the Equality Act 2010 or done ‘any other thing for person) has contravened the Equality Act 2010 or done ‘any other thing for the purpose or in connection with’ the Equality Act.the purpose or in connection with’ the Equality Act.

[206]A detriment is anything which an individual might reasonably consider A detriment is anything which an individual might reasonably consider changechanged their position for the worse or put them at a disadvantage. It could d their position for the worse or put them at a disadvantage. It could include a threat which the individual takes seriously and which it is reasonable include a threat which the individual takes seriously and which it is reasonable for them to take seriously. An unjustified sense of grievance alone would not for them to take seriously. An unjustified sense of grievance alone would not be sufficient to establishbe sufficient to establish detriment: EHRC Employment Code, paras 9.8 and detriment: EHRC Employment Code, paras 9.8 and 9.9.9.9.

[207]The protected act need not be the only or even the primary cause of the The protected act need not be the only or even the primary cause of the detriment, provided it is a significant factor:detriment, provided it is a significant factor: Pathan v South London Islamic Pathan v South London Islamic CentreCentre EAT 0312/13.EAT 0312/13. Submissions Submissions

[208]We received detailWe received detailed written and oral submissions fred written and oral submissions froom both parties and have m both parties and have taken these into account when reaching our conclusions. We refer to them taken these into account when reaching our conclusions. We refer to them only insofar as is necessary to explain our conclusions.only insofar as is necessary to explain our conclusions. C Conclusionsonclusions Direct discrimination (s.13 EqA 2010Direct discrimination (s.13 EqA 2010) ) Issue: Issue: 2. What are the facts in relation to the following allegations: 2. What are the facts in relation to the following allegations: 3. If disputed, did the Claimant reasonably see the treatment as a detriment? 3. If disputed, did the Claimant reasonably see the treatment as a detriment? 4. If so, has the Claimant proven facts from which the ET cou 4. If so, has the Claimant proven facts from which the ET could conclude that in any ld conclude that in any of those respects the claimant was treated less favourably than someone in the of those respects the claimant was treated less favourably than someone in the same material circumstances not of the same race was or would have been treated?same material circumstances not of the same race was or would have been treated? 5. Claimant confirmed that she is relying upon actual comparators, being 5. Claimant confirmed that she is relying upon actual comparators, being all other all other team members within The Returning Families Unit whose race is 'White' or 'White team members within The Returning Families Unit whose race is 'White' or 'White Other'.Other'. 6. If so, has the Claimant also proven facts from which the ET could conclude that 6. If so, has the Claimant also proven facts from which the ET could conclude that the less favourable treatment was because of race? the less favourable treatment was because of race? 7. If so, has the R shown that there was no less favourable treatment because of 7. If so, has the R shown that there was no less favourable treatment because of race? race? Case Number: 2211437/2023 38 a. Sandra Marinou not allocating new work to the Claimant for almost 2 months after a. Sandra Marinou not allocating new work to the Claimant for almost 2 months after the Claimant started employment (later in December 2019 or January 2020); the Claimant started employment (later in December 2019 or January 2020);

[209]We hWe had a conflict of evidence between what Ms Marinou said about how ad a conflict of evidence between what Ms Marinou said about how much work was available to allocate and what the much work was available to allocate and what the claimantclaimant saidsaid she was told she was told by by Ms Fitsimmons. On balance we preferred Ms Marinou’s evidence. The Ms Fitsimmons. On balance we preferred Ms Marinou’s evidence. The claimant’s evidence was secondhand and we consclaimant’s evidence was secondhand and we considered that she might well idered that she might well have misunderstood or misremembered what Ms Fitzsimmons had said about have misunderstood or misremembered what Ms Fitzsimmons had said about the cases and whether they were current the cases and whether they were current oor historic. We noted that in the r historic. We noted that in the claimant’s submissions her account of what witnesses had said was claimant’s submissions her account of what witnesses had said was frequently inaccufrequently inaccurate in ways which suggested that what the claimant heard rate in ways which suggested that what the claimant heard and remembered was and remembered was strongly strongly influenced by her beliefs abinfluenced by her beliefs aboout how she was ut how she was being treated.being treated.

[210]We accepted what MsWe accepted what Ms Marinou had to say about the difficulties she faced in Marinou had to say about the difficulties she faced in December 2019December 2019, , which was not in any material way challenged by the which was not in any material way challenged by the claimant. She was seeking effectively to reclaimant. She was seeking effectively to re--establish the service with a establish the service with a largely new team whilst herself working between two servicelargely new team whilst herself working between two services. Ms Marinou s. Ms Marinou allocated the claimant one of the few open cases. It was clear that cases had allocated the claimant one of the few open cases. It was clear that cases had to be allocated to practitioners based on the needs identified in the particular to be allocated to practitioners based on the needs identified in the particular family. It would have been selffamily. It would have been self--defeating of Ms Marinou not to allocate work to defeating of Ms Marinou not to allocate work to thethe claimantclaimant if there if there hadhad been work which needed to be been work which needed to be donedone, we saw no , we saw no evevidenceidence to suggest that was the case. to suggest that was the case.

[211]MsMs Marinou tried to allocate the claimant a new case when one came in, that Marinou tried to allocate the claimant a new case when one came in, that of the family who had of the family who had newly newly returned from Syriareturned from Syria,, but the issue about whether but the issue about whether the claimant was immune to TB arose and prevented her from working with the claimant was immune to TB arose and prevented her from working with that family.that family.

[212]The claimant was unThe claimant was unable to identify to the Tribunal work which was available able to identify to the Tribunal work which was available at the time and suitable for her to do which was not allocated to her. Whilst we at the time and suitable for her to do which was not allocated to her. Whilst we accept that she might not have been aware of every referral, it is clear that accept that she might not have been aware of every referral, it is clear that there were team meetings where work allthere were team meetings where work allocation was discussed and the ocation was discussed and the claimant was at the time working in an office with colleagues.claimant was at the time working in an office with colleagues.

[213]Looking at the Looking at the matter in the round we could see no evmatter in the round we could see no evidence idence that Ms Marinou that Ms Marinou had failed to allocate work which was suitable for the claimant to do to the had failed to allocate work which was suitable for the claimant to do to the claimantclaimant during this period, nor, it follows, could we see any facts from which during this period, nor, it follows, could we see any facts from which we could reasonably conclude that we could reasonably conclude that a comparable a comparable white employee would have white employee would have been allocated more work by Ms Marinou during this period.been allocated more work by Ms Marinou during this period.

[214]We did not uphold this claim. We did not uphold this claim. Case Number: 2211437/2023 39 Issue Issue b. Not having a monthly supervision (the Claimant asserts her last supervision b. Not having a monthly supervision (the Claimant asserts her last supervision was 27.10.2022) (between October 2022 was 27.10.2022) (between October 2022 –– July 2023); July 2023);

[215]We noted that there was a period of several months before Ms Maunder went We noted that there was a period of several months before Ms Maunder went on maternity leave when the claimant says she didon maternity leave when the claimant says she did not receive supervision. not receive supervision. Although Ms Karabulut reported to the Tribunal that Ms Maunder had said she Although Ms Karabulut reported to the Tribunal that Ms Maunder had said she did supervise the claimant up until February 2022, we did supervise the claimant up until February 2022, we notednoted that the that the respondentrespondent hadhad nnotot produced any documentary records of produced any documentary records of supervisionsupervision nor nor had Mhad Mss MaunderMaunder attended to give attended to give evidenceevidence. .

[216]The claimant told us that she did not think Ms Maunder was racist but said The claimant told us that she did not think Ms Maunder was racist but said that she believed that Ms Maunder had been pressured to stop her that she believed that Ms Maunder had been pressured to stop her supervision by Mr Kent. This was not put to Mr Kent and he was not supervision by Mr Kent. This was not put to Mr Kent and he was not questioned by the cquestioned by the claimant about the delay in finding the claimant a laimant about the delay in finding the claimant a supervisor. supervisor.

[217]In the circumstances we accepted that Ms Maunder had failed to provide the In the circumstances we accepted that Ms Maunder had failed to provide the claimant with supervision for several months before she went on maternity claimant with supervision for several months before she went on maternity leave. There was no allegation by the claileave. There was no allegation by the claimant that Ms Maunder was herself mant that Ms Maunder was herself discriminating against the claimant by not providing supervision and the discriminating against the claimant by not providing supervision and the allegation, which seemed to the Tribunal in any event improbable give the allegation, which seemed to the Tribunal in any event improbable give the other evidence we had, that Mr Kent had stopped Ms Maunder supervising other evidence we had, that Mr Kent had stopped Ms Maunder supervising the cthe claimant, was not put to him so that he could have a chance to deal with it laimant, was not put to him so that he could have a chance to deal with it fairly in evidence. In the circumstances we could see no evidence from which fairly in evidence. In the circumstances we could see no evidence from which we could reasonably conclude that the claimant was not receiving supervision we could reasonably conclude that the claimant was not receiving supervision during the period before Msduring the period before Ms Maunder went on maternity leave for reasons Maunder went on maternity leave for reasons connected with race.connected with race.

[218]So far as the period after that was concerned, the only evidence we had So far as the period after that was concerned, the only evidence we had suggested that Mrsuggested that Mr Kent was genuinely and in good faith looking for a Kent was genuinely and in good faith looking for a supervisor for the claimant outside the team and in due course found one. supervisor for the claimant outside the team and in due course found one.

[219]We do not minimize the effect on the claimant of not having supervision during We do not minimize the effect on the claimant of not having supervision during this extended period; it was clearly important ththis extended period; it was clearly important that staff performing this difficult at staff performing this difficult work had access to support and supervision was a part of that support.work had access to support and supervision was a part of that support.

[220]Nonetheless we could see no facts from we could reasonably conclude that Nonetheless we could see no facts from we could reasonably conclude that the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white employee the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white employee in her position in her position would have been because of her race. would have been because of her race. There was no evidence There was no evidence that anyone in her team was in sufficiently similar circumstances to constitute that anyone in her team was in sufficiently similar circumstances to constitute an actual comparator.an actual comparator. Issue: Issue: c. On 24.04.2023, C was not paid her salary, nobody else in the teams hc. On 24.04.2023, C was not paid her salary, nobody else in the teams had ad the same issue (same thing happened in Summer of 2022, which relies as the same issue (same thing happened in Summer of 2022, which relies as background to demonstrate that this was because of her race); background to demonstrate that this was because of her race); Case Number: 2211437/2023 40

[221]Looking at Looking at both both the the earlierearlier and later and later periodperiodss, the account given by the , the account given by the respondent was essentially that Ms Karabulut had not completed a change respondent was essentially that Ms Karabulut had not completed a change form because she had not been notified to do so by HR.form because she had not been notified to do so by HR.

[222]We accepted the We accepted the unchallenged evidenceunchallenged evidence that the process was as described that the process was as described by Mr Ajibolaby Mr Ajibola, ie the respons, ie the responsibility lay with HR to notify the relevant managers. ibility lay with HR to notify the relevant managers. We also accepted his evidence that what had happened in the claimant’s case We also accepted his evidence that what had happened in the claimant’s case was, unfortunately, not exceptional. was, unfortunately, not exceptional.

[223]Mr Ajibola had not, as part of his investigation, looked to see whether there Mr Ajibola had not, as part of his investigation, looked to see whether there were contrwere contract reports sent to relevant managers. We note that had there been act reports sent to relevant managers. We note that had there been any such reports, they should have formed part of the respondent’s any such reports, they should have formed part of the respondent’s disclosure. In any event we did not have any notifications from HR either to disclosure. In any event we did not have any notifications from HR either to service managers or managers further up the lservice managers or managers further up the line management chain that the ine management chain that the claimant’s fixed term contract was expiring. claimant’s fixed term contract was expiring.

[224]We accepted that not all members of the team would have required contract We accepted that not all members of the team would have required contract renewal at the same time, which would have made the failure in relation to the renewal at the same time, which would have made the failure in relation to the claimant much more strikinclaimant much more striking. Some members of the team had transferred in g. Some members of the team had transferred in from elsewhere in the service and may have been on permanent contractsfrom elsewhere in the service and may have been on permanent contracts or or fixed term contracts with different end datesfixed term contracts with different end dates..

[225]We considered whether there were facts from which we could reasonably We considered whether there were facts from which we could reasonably conclude that theconclude that the claimant’s treatment was less favourable than that of claimant’s treatment was less favourable than that of other other team membersteam members or hypothetical white staff. Was there anything beyond a or hypothetical white staff. Was there anything beyond a difference in treatment and a difference in race, for example between the difference in treatment and a difference in race, for example between the claimant and Ms Maunder?claimant and Ms Maunder?

[226]We were troubled by the fWe were troubled by the fact that the claimant suffered the same treatment act that the claimant suffered the same treatment twice. However bearing in mind the twice. However bearing in mind the evidenceevidence that we had about that we had about whatwhat a a generally generally turbulentturbulent time it was for the servicetime it was for the service, with significant uncertainty that , with significant uncertainty that it would continue through much of the period, it would continue through much of the period, and theand the evidence that, evidence that, particularly on the second occasionparticularly on the second occasion,, the respondent acted with alacrity to the respondent acted with alacrity to rectify the error, we could nrectify the error, we could notot find facts ffind facts frorom which we could reasonably m which we could reasonably conclude that the claimant’s race had played a part in her treatment.conclude that the claimant’s race had played a part in her treatment.

[227]It seemed to us when we were looking at the question of whether to draw an It seemed to us when we were looking at the question of whether to draw an inference (which would have involved rejecting Ms Karabulut’s evidence that inference (which would have involved rejecting Ms Karabulut’s evidence that she had not been notified by HR to do a change form for the claimant) that she had not been notified by HR to do a change form for the claimant) that this would have been an inherethis would have been an inherently improbable way for Ms Karabulut to inflict ntly improbable way for Ms Karabulut to inflict racerace--based hostility based hostility onon the claimant. Any failure to renew the contract would the claimant. Any failure to renew the contract would be addressed when the claimant became aware of it and the claimant was be addressed when the claimant became aware of it and the claimant was also also likely to complain about Ms Karabulut once she became likely to complain about Ms Karabulut once she became aware of the aware of the issue. If there had been a trail showing that Ms Karabulut had in fact been issue. If there had been a trail showing that Ms Karabulut had in fact been Case Number: 2211437/2023 41 notified by HR to complete a change form for the complainant, that fact could notified by HR to complete a change form for the complainant, that fact could no doubt have had no doubt have had undesirable undesirable consequences for Ms Karabulut. consequences for Ms Karabulut.

[228]Even if the burden had paEven if the burden had passed, we were ultimately satisfied by Ms Karabulut’s ssed, we were ultimately satisfied by Ms Karabulut’s explanation explanation of what had occurred; that she had not received notification from of what had occurred; that she had not received notification from HR and was not otherwise aware that the claimant’s contract was expiring. HR and was not otherwise aware that the claimant’s contract was expiring. Issue: Issue: d. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colled. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant ague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very wicked and they throw poo at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported wicked and they throw poo at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Assocthis to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and iate Director) and Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this was because of race because the previous conversation had related to serious work was because of race because the previous conversation had related to serious work matters and this comment came out of nowherematters and this comment came out of nowhere. .

[229]We accepted Dr Shaw’s account of what he said and why he said it. It was not We accepted Dr Shaw’s account of what he said and why he said it. It was not only corroborated by the accounts of other witnesses, it made sense in a way only corroborated by the accounts of other witnesses, it made sense in a way that the claimant’s account did not. that the claimant’s account did not. It is hard not to imagine there would have It is hard not to imagine there would have been some significantbeen some significant surprise at this professional meeting of Dr Shaw had surprise at this professional meeting of Dr Shaw had said the words the claimant alleged he said with no context. said the words the claimant alleged he said with no context.

[230]We considered that there was nothing We considered that there was nothing in Dr Shaw’s anecdote which was in Dr Shaw’s anecdote which was intended to refer to black people or the claimant in particular. We shintended to refer to black people or the claimant in particular. We should make ould make it clear that we entirely understand why the claimant was sensitive to talk it clear that we entirely understand why the claimant was sensitive to talk about monkeys and African monkeys in particular, given the well known racist about monkeys and African monkeys in particular, given the well known racist trope. We accept that the claimant genuinely concluded that the story was trope. We accept that the claimant genuinely concluded that the story was intended to refer tintended to refer to her and that she was genuinely very upset by it. That was o her and that she was genuinely very upset by it. That was why Dr Shaw apologised to her. why Dr Shaw apologised to her.

[231]What we did not conclude was that Dr Shaw told the anecdote in any way What we did not conclude was that Dr Shaw told the anecdote in any way because of the claimant’s race. because of the claimant’s race.

[232]Nor did we accept that there was any evidence at all that he had treated her Nor did we accept that there was any evidence at all that he had treated her less favourably because of her race in other respects. The suggestion thatless favourably because of her race in other respects. The suggestion that he he turned his mug so that the drawing of a monkey faced her made no sense in turned his mug so that the drawing of a monkey faced her made no sense in the context of an online meeting where it is simply not possible to point an the context of an online meeting where it is simply not possible to point an object at one person in particular. The claimant never explained how the object at one person in particular. The claimant never explained how the mug could have been aimedmug could have been aimed at her in particular. We did nat her in particular. We did notot feel able feel able iin the n the circumstances to be satisfied by the claimant’s evidence that Dr Shaw leaned circumstances to be satisfied by the claimant’s evidence that Dr Shaw leaned forward and cupped his ear in particular when she spoke, rather than leaning forward and cupped his ear in particular when she spoke, rather than leaning forward more generally because of his hearing issueforward more generally because of his hearing issues. s.

[233]So far as social contact with Dr Shaw was concerned, we accepted that there So far as social contact with Dr Shaw was concerned, we accepted that there was a limited number of occasions when the claimant and Dr Shaw would was a limited number of occasions when the claimant and Dr Shaw would have met in person. She might have perceived that he was friendlier with have met in person. She might have perceived that he was friendlier with Case Number: 2211437/2023 42 o others because she saw him talkithers because she saw him talking to team members he knew better but we ng to team members he knew better but we did did notnot have sufficient evidence fhave sufficient evidence frorom which we could properly infer that Dr m which we could properly infer that Dr Shaw was excluding the claimant or being unfriendly to her, much less that Shaw was excluding the claimant or being unfriendly to her, much less that any such behaviour was because of the claimant’s race. any such behaviour was because of the claimant’s race.

[234]We did We did not uphold this claim.not uphold this claim. Issue: Issue: e. e. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge.Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge.

[235]We bore in mind that the circumstances were that Ms Penfold had come new We bore in mind that the circumstances were that Ms Penfold had come new to the issue of what was happening about the claimant’s TB test / vaccine. to the issue of what was happening about the claimant’s TB test / vaccine. The claimant was concerned to resolve the issue. It seemed to the Tribunal The claimant was concerned to resolve the issue. It seemed to the Tribunal that it would be completely routithat it would be completely routine for a manager to ask HR what had been ne for a manager to ask HR what had been happening. The claimant suggested that this was because she was not being happening. The claimant suggested that this was because she was not being believed by Ms Penfold but we could nbelieved by Ms Penfold but we could notot see that that was a reasonable see that that was a reasonable inference to draw. Presented with a situation where there had clearlyinference to draw. Presented with a situation where there had clearly been been delay, Ms Penfold would need to know what HR had been doing about that delay, Ms Penfold would need to know what HR had been doing about that delay and what efforts they had made to seek cooperation fdelay and what efforts they had made to seek cooperation frorom the m the occupational health service.occupational health service.

[236]It is true to say that both Ms Penfold and HR seem to have misunderstood It is true to say that both Ms Penfold and HR seem to have misunderstood what what the the ppre employment health document actually showed in respect of the re employment health document actually showed in respect of the TB issue.TB issue.

[237]MsMs Penfold accepted that she looked at this occupational health document Penfold accepted that she looked at this occupational health document without having sought the claimant’s permission to do so; she said that she without having sought the claimant’s permission to do so; she said that she would have expected HR to tell her if she asked for something she should not would have expected HR to tell her if she asked for something she should not have. have.

[238]We looked carefully at We looked carefully at what Ms Penfold did, which seems to have been what Ms Penfold did, which seems to have been designed to further the claimant’s interests, and which was not done in a way designed to further the claimant’s interests, and which was not done in a way which was unreasonable (which unreasonableness might have been material which was unreasonable (which unreasonableness might have been material from which it was appropriate to draw inferences). We did nfrom which it was appropriate to draw inferences). We did not have a context ot have a context of other allegedly discriminatory acts by Ms Penfold to consider and we could of other allegedly discriminatory acts by Ms Penfold to consider and we could not see facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the claimant’s not see facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the claimant’s race played a role in her treatment. race played a role in her treatment.

[239]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim. Issue: Issue: f. R took f. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she contact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. Case Number: 2211437/2023 43

[240]We have set out the facts In relation to the TB issWe have set out the facts In relation to the TB issue above. It is undoubtedly a ue above. It is undoubtedly a sorry tale and it appears that the occupational health service was unhelpful in sorry tale and it appears that the occupational health service was unhelpful in early 2020early 2020 and possibly at later pointsand possibly at later points. . It appears that the claimant’s It appears that the claimant’s managers were making significant efforts to assist her. managers were making significant efforts to assist her. There was a period There was a period thereafter from thereafter from MMarch 2020 whenarch 2020 when,, because everyone was working remotely because everyone was working remotely and health services had other priorities, it was understandable that the isand health services had other priorities, it was understandable that the issue sue was not being pursued, it appeared by the claimant awas not being pursued, it appeared by the claimant ass wellwell as by the as by the respondent.respondent.

[241]The matter was then picked up in the summer of 2021 by Ms Penfold. The The matter was then picked up in the summer of 2021 by Ms Penfold. The respondent pursued the issue for the claimant. There were issues with the respondent pursued the issue for the claimant. There were issues with the occupational health provioccupational health provider and there were also issues with finding two days der and there were also issues with finding two days the claimant was at work when the provider was also running the Mantoux the claimant was at work when the provider was also running the Mantoux clinics.clinics. Ultimately the claimant was tested and vaccinated in January 2022. Ultimately the claimant was tested and vaccinated in January 2022. We could see nothing in thatWe could see nothing in that latter latter period period where faulwhere fault couldt could fairly fairly be be laid at laid at the respondent’s door. the respondent’s door.

[242]Looking at the period as a whole, we could not see anything the respondent Looking at the period as a whole, we could not see anything the respondent had done wrong except that possibly the matter could have been escalated had done wrong except that possibly the matter could have been escalated with the OH provider in some more forceful way at with the OH provider in some more forceful way at some pointsome point but the failure but the failure to do that was not itself unreasonable in a way which led us to draw any to do that was not itself unreasonable in a way which led us to draw any adverse inferences. adverse inferences. We couldWe could howeverhowever entirely understand why the claimant entirely understand why the claimant was frustrated and upset about the situation.was frustrated and upset about the situation.

[243]We had no actual comparator as we hWe had no actual comparator as we had no example of a white member of ad no example of a white member of the team and had also required TB testing. We could see no facts fthe team and had also required TB testing. We could see no facts frorom which m which we could reasonably conclude that anyone at the respondent involved in this we could reasonably conclude that anyone at the respondent involved in this matter had treated the claimant less favourably than a hypothetical wmatter had treated the claimant less favourably than a hypothetical white hite comparator because of her race.comparator because of her race. Issue: Issue: g. Approximately, between November 2022 and 1 April 2023, Tim Kent called g. Approximately, between November 2022 and 1 April 2023, Tim Kent called me to ask 'what my role would be in the team going forward' and started the meeting me to ask 'what my role would be in the team going forward' and started the meeting by saying 'look, I want to tell you about by saying 'look, I want to tell you about myself. I was adopted. I am a mixture of myself. I was adopted. I am a mixture of Lebanese and [another race]” [The Claimant cannot recall but it may have been Lebanese and [another race]” [The Claimant cannot recall but it may have been white, white British or white other.] “I started working with the adoption and fostering white, white British or white other.] “I started working with the adoption and fostering department at Hackney Council but had to leave bdepartment at Hackney Council but had to leave because it was too close to home”. ecause it was too close to home”. C alleges that Tim Kent was suggesting that C was a former terrorist and she can C alleges that Tim Kent was suggesting that C was a former terrorist and she can see herself in service userssee herself in service users. .

[244]The claimant told the Tribunal that she believed Mr Kent was part of a The claimant told the Tribunal that she believed Mr Kent was part of a conspiracy to remove her from the respconspiracy to remove her from the respondent because of her race.ondent because of her race.

[245]Mr Kent’s account of the matter was that he was seeking to explore what was Mr Kent’s account of the matter was that he was seeking to explore what was going wrong for the claimant and to try and make her happier in in her role. going wrong for the claimant and to try and make her happier in in her role. We accepted that was what he intended when asking her how she saw her We accepted that was what he intended when asking her how she saw her rolrole going forward. It seemed to us that it was an unsurprising question given e going forward. It seemed to us that it was an unsurprising question given the level of dissatisfaction the claimant had expressed by this point. the level of dissatisfaction the claimant had expressed by this point. Mr Kent Mr Kent Case Number: 2211437/2023 44 was relatively new in his role and was seeking to tackle the problems the was relatively new in his role and was seeking to tackle the problems the claimant was raising.claimant was raising.

[246]He He explained to the Tribunal why he shared his own experience. What may explained to the Tribunal why he shared his own experience. What may have gone wrong in particular in the discussion was the use of the word have gone wrong in particular in the discussion was the use of the word ‘‘conflictconflict’, which we understand Mr Kent to have used in a very general sense’, which we understand Mr Kent to have used in a very general sense. . The claimant took that as a referenceThe claimant took that as a reference to war zones and inferred fto war zones and inferred frorom what Mr m what Mr Kent said about personal experience driving an interest in a particular kind of Kent said about personal experience driving an interest in a particular kind of work that Mr Kent was suggesting that she was interested in working with work that Mr Kent was suggesting that she was interested in working with these particular children because she had a background of war these particular children because she had a background of war zones and/or zones and/or involvement with terrorism.involvement with terrorism. She did not challenge the account he gaveShe did not challenge the account he gave of what of what he said he said or suggest that he had said she came from a war zone or was or suggest that he had said she came from a war zone or was a a terrorist. terrorist.

[247]The evidence we had, particularly when looking at the tone and content of MrThe evidence we had, particularly when looking at the tone and content of Mr Kent’s emails, was that he was seeking to take a gentle and empathetic Kent’s emails, was that he was seeking to take a gentle and empathetic approach to addressing the claimant’s dissatisfaction. Part of that approach approach to addressing the claimant’s dissatisfaction. Part of that approach was to seek to bond with her by sharing his own personal history. That was to seek to bond with her by sharing his own personal history. That approach unfortunately backfired anapproach unfortunately backfired and the claimant came away with wrong d the claimant came away with wrong impressions. We considered that by this point the claimant was regarding the impressions. We considered that by this point the claimant was regarding the respondent with such suspicion that she was seeing whatever anyone from respondent with such suspicion that she was seeing whatever anyone from the respondent said to her through a glass darkly. the respondent said to her through a glass darkly.

[248]We could see no faWe could see no facts fcts fromrom which we could reasonably conclude that Mr Kent which we could reasonably conclude that Mr Kent would have handled this matter differently / more favourably had the cwould have handled this matter differently / more favourably had the claimantlaimant been white.been white.

[249]We did not uphold this claim. We did not uphold this claim. Harassment (s.26 Equality Act 2010) Harassment (s.26 Equality Act 2010) 8. Did the R engage in unwanted 8. Did the R engage in unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic of conduct related to the protected characteristic of race? race?10. If so, did such conduct have the purpose or effect of violating the C’s dignity or 10. If so, did such conduct have the purpose or effect of violating the C’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the C? C to particularise if she asserts that the conduct had the purpose or effecthe C? C to particularise if she asserts that the conduct had the purpose or effect. t.

11. In deciding whether the unwanted conduct has such effect (in the paragraph 11. In deciding whether the unwanted conduct has such effect (in the paragraph above), the ET will have regard to: above), the ET will have regard to: i.the perception of the C; i.the perception of the C; Case Number: 2211437/2023 45 ii.the other circumstances of the case; ii.the other circumstances of the case; iii. whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have iii. whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effectthat effect 9. The unwanted conduct related to race complained of is: 9. The unwanted conduct related to race complained of is: Issue: Issue: a. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant a. On 24.03.2023 at a team meeting, colleague Dr Mike Shaw (Consultant Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very Psychiatrist) made a racist joke about African monkeys how they "were bad and very wicked and they throw powicked and they throw poo at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported o at people" and everyone laughed. (C states she reported this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and this to Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR), Tim Kent (Associate Director) and Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this Micheal Holland (Chief Executive Officer)) The Claimant draws an inference that this was because of race because the pwas because of race because the previous conversation had related to serious work revious conversation had related to serious work matters and this comment came out of nowhere. matters and this comment came out of nowhere.

[250]We accepted that the conduct was unwanted by the claimant. It We accepted that the conduct was unwanted by the claimant. It iis clear s clear ffrorom m our findings above our findings above that Dr that Dr Shaw did nShaw did not have the proscribed purpose.ot have the proscribed purpose. His His intention, we accepted, was as he described, to use a wellintention, we accepted, was as he described, to use a well--thumbed anecdote thumbed anecdote to illustrate a point. to illustrate a point.

[251]Did the conduct have the proscribed effecDid the conduct have the proscribed effect?t? We accepted that the claimant We accepted that the claimant was very upset but we had to consider what was reasonable. We bear in was very upset but we had to consider what was reasonable. We bear in mind mind the the contextcontext was a professional meeting and the speaker was a mental was a professional meeting and the speaker was a mental healthhealth practitionerpractitioner. . The reasonable listener would not expect Dr Shaw to be The reasonable listener would not expect Dr Shaw to be introducing a racist trope. We accept that if the claimant has a history whintroducing a racist trope. We accept that if the claimant has a history whiich ch has made her has made her particularly alertparticularly alert to to the possibility of the possibility of racism, she might racism, she might reasonably be alerted when an anecdote involving monkeys was introduced. reasonably be alerted when an anecdote involving monkeys was introduced. However, the reasonable listener would hHowever, the reasonable listener would haave processed what Dr Shaw ve processed what Dr Shaw actually said and realiactually said and realissed what hed what hee said did nsaid did notot relate to race. In those relate to race. In those cicircumstances we do not consider that the anecdote could reasonably be rcumstances we do not consider that the anecdote could reasonably be considered to have a harassing effect. considered to have a harassing effect.

[252]We have already found that we had no evidence that Dr Shaw told the We have already found that we had no evidence that Dr Shaw told the anecdote in any way because of race. Is there anything inherently relating to anecdote in any way because of race. Is there anything inherently relating to race? We concluded that there was not. Not every discussion about a monkey race? We concluded that there was not. Not every discussion about a monkey relates to race just because there is a history of racist language towards black relates to race just because there is a history of racist language towards black people centred around monkeys. people centred around monkeys.

[253]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim. . . Issue: Issue: b. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the b. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge. Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge.

[254]We accepted that this conduct was unwanted by the claimant. It was clear to We accepted that this conduct was unwanted by the claimant. It was clear to us that Ms Penfold’s purpose us that Ms Penfold’s purpose was not a proscribed one. We did not consider was not a proscribed one. We did not consider that the conduct could reasonably be considered to have the harassing that the conduct could reasonably be considered to have the harassing effect, given the case effect, given the case lawlaw set out aboveset out above; it was certainly annoying to the ; it was certainly annoying to the Case Number: 2211437/2023 46 claimant and she was concerned about how her health records had claimant and she was concerned about how her health records had been been handled by HR, but it would handled by HR, but it would cheapencheapen the language to describe this incident as the language to describe this incident as violating her dignity or creating the proscribed environment. violating her dignity or creating the proscribed environment.

[255]Just as we could see no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that Just as we could see no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that this incident occurred because ofthis incident occurred because of the claimant’s race, we could see no the claimant’s race, we could see no relationship with race.relationship with race.

[256]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim. Issue: Issue: c. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first c. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she contact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022.

[257]This was certainly unwanted conduct and This was certainly unwanted conduct and extremely frustrating for the extremely frustrating for the claimant. We found no evidence of a proscribed effect. If we focus on the claimant. We found no evidence of a proscribed effect. If we focus on the conduct of the respondent’s managers and their communications with the conduct of the respondent’s managers and their communications with the claimant, again we consider that it would cheapen the language to describe claimant, again we consider that it would cheapen the language to describe those those actions as violating the claimant’s dignity or creating the proscribed actions as violating the claimant’s dignity or creating the proscribed environment. At times when the issue was actively pursued, it would have environment. At times when the issue was actively pursued, it would have been clear to the claimant that the respondent was seeking to resolve the been clear to the claimant that the respondent was seeking to resolve the matter with occupational health matter with occupational health

[258]JustJust as we could see no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that as we could see no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that this course of events occurred because of the claimant’s race, we could see this course of events occurred because of the claimant’s race, we could see no relationship with race.no relationship with race.

[259]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim. . . Victimisation Victimisation (s.27 Equality Act 2010) (s.27 Equality Act 2010) Issue: Issue:12. The Protected Acts that the Claimant relies upon are the grievances on 18 12. The Protected Acts that the Claimant relies upon are the grievances on 18 March 2021, 2 November 2022, 3 November 2022 and in May 2023. March 2021, 2 November 2022, 3 November 2022 and in May 2023.

13. Are these protected acts (i.e. do they raise allegations of discrimination, 13. Are these protected acts (i.e. do they raise allegations of discrimination, harassment, etc) harassment, etc)

[260]We considered whether each of these communications was a protected act. We considered whether each of these communications was a protected act.

[261]The 18 March 2021 grievance opens with: ‘Please accept this as a formal The 18 March 2021 grievance opens with: ‘Please accept this as a formal complaintcomplaint of the racial treatment I have been subjected to…’ and is clearly a of the racial treatment I have been subjected to…’ and is clearly a protected act.protected act.

[262]So far as the complaint made by email on 3 November So far as the complaint made by email on 3 November 2022 2022 is concerned, is concerned, this contains a concern about non payment of salary but there is nothing in this contains a concern about non payment of salary but there is nothing in Case Number: 2211437/2023 47 the email itself, alo the email itself, alone or in context, which indicates that any complaint is ne or in context, which indicates that any complaint is being made in relation to the being made in relation to the EEquality Act 2010.quality Act 2010.

[263]The May 2023 grievance inter alia makes reference to racist jokes and is also The May 2023 grievance inter alia makes reference to racist jokes and is also a protected act. a protected act. Issue: Issue:14. Did the R subject the Claimant to any detriment because of the Protected 14. Did the R subject the Claimant to any detriment because of the Protected Act? Act?

15. The detriments that the Claimant asserts are: 15. The detriments that the Claimant asserts are: a. Any reference to racism was removed from the description of C’s grievance dated a. Any reference to racism was removed from the description of C’s grievance dated 18 March 2021; 18 March 2021;

[264]We did not find thWe did not find this allegation made out on the facts. The claimant’s complaint is allegation made out on the facts. The claimant’s complaint is itself attached to the report. The title of the report indicates that it is an is itself attached to the report. The title of the report indicates that it is an investigation report under the Bullying and Harassment Procedure and the investigation report under the Bullying and Harassment Procedure and the claimant may have felt that this downpclaimant may have felt that this downplayed the discriminationlayed the discrimination angle but it angle but it was the procedure which applied to the complaintwas the procedure which applied to the complaint. .

[265]In the report, Mr Fitzmaurice says at the outset thatIn the report, Mr Fitzmaurice says at the outset that: : ‘‘The complaint related to The complaint related to alleged racist behaviour of the Office Manager, Sandra Marinoualleged racist behaviour of the Office Manager, Sandra Marinou’ and then ’ and then proceeds to proceeds to itemize the allegations. Whilst he does not repeat that each is itemize the allegations. Whilst he does not repeat that each is said to be race discrimination, he has already explained that the overarching said to be race discrimination, he has already explained that the overarching complaint is one of race discrimination.complaint is one of race discrimination.

[266]Since the detriment was nSince the detriment was notot made out, we did nmade out, we did not ot hhaave to look at the ve to look at the issue of issue of causation.causation.

[267]We did nWe did notot uphold this cluphold this claiaim. m. Issue: Issue: b. 02.02.2023 the Claimant submitted a Subject Access Request thatb. 02.02.2023 the Claimant submitted a Subject Access Request that was not was not responded to at the time of presenting the ET1 Claim Form; responded to at the time of presenting the ET1 Claim Form;

[268]Here there was a delay before the DSAR was dealt with and we considered Here there was a delay before the DSAR was dealt with and we considered that this was reasonably regarded as a detriment.that this was reasonably regarded as a detriment.

[269]We accepted the evidence of the respondent that the email had beWe accepted the evidence of the respondent that the email had been en overlooked because of a member of HR staff’s holiday. This was consistent overlooked because of a member of HR staff’s holiday. This was consistent with the enquiries made by Ms Merchant and the message she then sent to with the enquiries made by Ms Merchant and the message she then sent to the team about making sure DSARs came to her. We also had some regard to the team about making sure DSARs came to her. We also had some regard to the likelihood that unconnected inthe likelihood that unconnected individuals in HR would have bedividuals in HR would have beeen seeking to n seeking to subject the claimant to a detriment because of the only protected act which subject the claimant to a detriment because of the only protected act which Case Number: 2211437/2023 48 had occurred by the time the claimant submitted her DSAR: the historic had occurred by the time the claimant submitted her DSAR: the historic complaint against Ms Marinou. complaint against Ms Marinou.

[270]We concluded that either we were aWe concluded that either we were able to decide this complaint without ble to decide this complaint without reverting to the burden of proof or alternatively that there were no facts from reverting to the burden of proof or alternatively that there were no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the delay in responding to the which we could reasonably conclude that the delay in responding to the DSAR was caused by the relevant protected act.DSAR was caused by the relevant protected act.

[271]We did not uphold tWe did not uphold this claim. his claim. Issue: Issue: c. On 05.05.2023 the Claimant had a meeting with Hulya Karabulut and Tim c. On 05.05.2023 the Claimant had a meeting with Hulya Karabulut and Tim Kent (with Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR) as an observer) to answer “trumped Kent (with Dayo Ajibola (Associate Director HR) as an observer) to answer “trumped up charges”; up charges”;

[272]We noted that MrWe noted that Mr Kent’s email inviting the claimant to this meeting in no way Kent’s email inviting the claimant to this meeting in no way sounded liked an invitation to any kind of disciplinary meetingsounded liked an invitation to any kind of disciplinary meeting. To the contrary, . To the contrary, it was clear that he was seeking to deal in a sensitive and non inflammatory it was clear that he was seeking to deal in a sensitive and non inflammatory way with a professional difference way with a professional difference which had arisen. which had arisen.

[273]We accepted that the meeting was essentially about the issue of whether the We accepted that the meeting was essentially about the issue of whether the claimant was saying the child should nclaimant was saying the child should notot have to attend therapy at the have to attend therapy at the Tavistock, a topic it was clear from the claimant’s evidence she felt very Tavistock, a topic it was clear from the claimant’s evidence she felt very strongly aboutstrongly about. It may be . It may be that the claimant misremembered or misthat the claimant misremembered or misinterpretedinterpreted a reference to the child saying Auntie Gloria would tell someone off as a a reference to the child saying Auntie Gloria would tell someone off as a reference to beating up. reference to beating up. We accepted that there was no reference to beating We accepted that there was no reference to beating up. up.

[274]We did not consider that what Mr KenWe did not consider that what Mr Kent did subjected the claimant to a t did subjected the claimant to a detriment. The respondent had a responsibility to the children it looked after to detriment. The respondent had a responsibility to the children it looked after to attempt to resolve professional issues between staff which might affect the attempt to resolve professional issues between staff which might affect the quality of support the child and family were receiving.quality of support the child and family were receiving. There waThere was clearly a s clearly a matter which had troubled the clinician involved and which needed to be matter which had troubled the clinician involved and which needed to be addressed. addressed. It seemed to us that MIt seemed to us that Mrr Kent had dealt with the issue as Kent had dealt with the issue as sensitively as he couldsensitively as he could and in a way which would nand in a way which would notot have made a reasonable have made a reasonable employee consider that she employee consider that she was being disciplined. was being disciplined.

[275]Even Even ifif we had found we had found there was there was a detriment, we consider that there was no a detriment, we consider that there was no evidence of a causal link with the by then historical grievance against Ms evidence of a causal link with the by then historical grievance against Ms Marinou. Marinou.

[276]We did not uphold this claim. We did not uphold this claim. Issue: Issue: d. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the d. Around 15 July 2021, Sandra Marinou and Jane Penfold demanded the Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge. Claimant’s Occupational Health records for no reason and without her knowledge. Case Number: 2211437/2023 49

[277]We considered carefully whether this was a detriment. We considered carefully whether this was a detriment. It was not clear to us It was not clear to us what permissions had been gwhat permissions had been given by the claimant iven by the claimant forfor the use of the pre the use of the pre employment medical check and that matter was not explored in evidence. In employment medical check and that matter was not explored in evidence. In those circumstancesthose circumstances,, and given that Ms Penfold had apologised and the and given that Ms Penfold had apologised and the respondent appeared to accept that she should have asked for the clarespondent appeared to accept that she should have asked for the claimant’s imant’s permission, we concluded that a reasonable employee could have considered permission, we concluded that a reasonable employee could have considered she was put a disadvantage. We therefore concluded that there was a she was put a disadvantage. We therefore concluded that there was a detriment.detriment.

[278]WWhenhen we looked at what had happened, however, we could see no facts fwe looked at what had happened, however, we could see no facts frorom m which we could reasonwhich we could reasonably conclude that the claimant’s grievance against Ms ably conclude that the claimant’s grievance against Ms Marinou had any causative role to play. Ms Marinou had simply suggested Marinou had any causative role to play. Ms Marinou had simply suggested Ms Penfold speak with HRMs Penfold speak with HR,, which seemed to us an entirely benign suggestion which seemed to us an entirely benign suggestion in the circumstances. Ms Penfold was aware the claimin the circumstances. Ms Penfold was aware the claimant had a grievance ant had a grievance against Ms Marinou but we accepted that her intentions were simply to try and against Ms Marinou but we accepted that her intentions were simply to try and get to the bottom of the issue about the claimant’s TB immunityget to the bottom of the issue about the claimant’s TB immunity. We could see . We could see no facts fno facts frorom which we could conclude that the grievance against Ms Marinou m which we could conclude that the grievance against Ms Marinou played any role in her thinking.played any role in her thinking.

[279]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim. Issue Issue: : e. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first e. R took 2 years to arrange for C to have a tuberculosis vaccination. C's first contact with Occupational Health was oncontact with Occupational Health was on 10 January 2020 and she alleges she 10 January 2020 and she alleges she wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022. wasn't provided the vaccinations until 6 February 2022.

[280]The delay in sorting this matter out was clearly a detriment. Ms Marinou’The delay in sorting this matter out was clearly a detriment. Ms Marinou’ss involvement with trying involvement with trying to resolve the matter forto resolve the matter for the claimant predated the the claimant predated the grievance against her. There was then a hiatus due to the pandemic and Ms grievance against her. There was then a hiatus due to the pandemic and Ms Penfold became involved. The efforts by the respondent to get some Penfold became involved. The efforts by the respondent to get some resolution through the occupational health service were well documentresolution through the occupational health service were well documenteded and and we could see we could see no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the no facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the grievance against Ms Marinou had played any role.in the delay in the claimant grievance against Ms Marinou had played any role.in the delay in the claimant being tested and vaccinated. being tested and vaccinated.

[281]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim. Issue: Issue: f. Failure to deal with grievances submitted on 18 March 2021,2 November f. Failure to deal with grievances submitted on 18 March 2021,2 November 2022 and 3 November 2022 and in May 2023. 2022 and 3 November 2022 and in May 2023.

[282]It was not entirely clear in what sense the claimant said the respondent had It was not entirely clear in what sense the claimant said the respondent had failed to defailed to dealal with each of these grievances. The 18 Marchwith each of these grievances. The 18 March 2021 grievance 2021 grievance was subject to what appeared to the Tribunal to be a very detailed was subject to what appeared to the Tribunal to be a very detailed investigation and investigation report. The claimant complained about the investigation and investigation report. The claimant complained about the minutes of her investigation meeting but then declined to amend the minutes minutes of her investigation meeting but then declined to amend the minutes Case Number: 2211437/2023 50 or to share the recor or to share the recording which she said she had made of the meeting. ding which she said she had made of the meeting. She She declined to be involved further with the grievance investigation. Her own declined to be involved further with the grievance investigation. Her own behaviour at this point did nbehaviour at this point did notot seem to the seem to the TTribunal to have been reasonable ribunal to have been reasonable or to have assisted in the resolution of her own gror to have assisted in the resolution of her own grievances. If she was ievances. If she was dissatisfied with the quality of the minutes, she had every opportunity to dissatisfied with the quality of the minutes, she had every opportunity to amend or challenge them. amend or challenge them.

[283]The claimant suggested that the questioning of witnesses was not robust and The claimant suggested that the questioning of witnesses was not robust and that follow up questions were not asked but she provided that follow up questions were not asked but she provided no examples for the no examples for the Tribunal to consider. Overall it appeared to us that detailed questions were Tribunal to consider. Overall it appeared to us that detailed questions were asked and a through factfinding undertaken.asked and a through factfinding undertaken.

[284]The claimant was also critical of the delay in concluding the grievance. We The claimant was also critical of the delay in concluding the grievance. We noted that the report took some time tnoted that the report took some time to write up after the interviews o write up after the interviews concluded; the last interview was in at the end of May 2021 and the claimant concluded; the last interview was in at the end of May 2021 and the claimant was not invited to a feedback meeting until early August 2021. We did nwas not invited to a feedback meeting until early August 2021. We did notot have evhave evidenceidence ffrorom Mr Fitzm Mr Fitzmauricemaurice or anyone or anyone elselse as to why the grievance e as to why the grievance report took so long to prepare. report took so long to prepare.

[285]Delay is nDelay is notot however of itself a ‘failure to deal’ and although delay ihowever of itself a ‘failure to deal’ and although delay inn resolving resolving grievances is unfortunate and counter productive, the timescale did grievances is unfortunate and counter productive, the timescale did notnot seem seem to the to the TTribunal to be an unusual one for the type and complexity of the ribunal to be an unusual one for the type and complexity of the grievance. grievance. The clThe claimanaimant had by this point said she did not wish to take part in t had by this point said she did not wish to take part in the grievance any morethe grievance any more; she; she declined to attend a feedback meeting and said declined to attend a feedback meeting and said that she had deleted the report unrthat she had deleted the report unread. ead.

[286]The investigation and outcome seemed to the Tribunal to be thorough and The investigation and outcome seemed to the Tribunal to be thorough and wellwell--reasoned, even if the claimant did not agree with that outcome. She did reasoned, even if the claimant did not agree with that outcome. She did not point to any aspect of the findings which was irrational or unsupported by not point to any aspect of the findings which was irrational or unsupported by evidence.evidence.

[287]In the cirIn the circumstances we did not find that the respondent had failed to deal cumstances we did not find that the respondent had failed to deal with this grievance.with this grievance.

[288]So far as the November 2022 complaint about the failure to pay salary is So far as the November 2022 complaint about the failure to pay salary is concerned, the claimant’s complaint to the concerned, the claimant’s complaint to the TTribunal was that she addressed ribunal was that she addressed that complaint to Msthat complaint to Ms Karabulut and Ms Karabulut ignored it. It is clear fKarabulut and Ms Karabulut ignored it. It is clear frorom the m the narrative set out above that this is not what occurred. Ms Karabulut narrative set out above that this is not what occurred. Ms Karabulut responded to the claimant to say that the matter would be looked into and responded to the claimant to say that the matter would be looked into and there was first an effort to deal with the claimantthere was first an effort to deal with the claimant’s concerns in emails from Ms ’s concerns in emails from Ms Heneghan. The claimant was not satisfied that the respondent would Heneghan. The claimant was not satisfied that the respondent would otot sort sort out the issue of overpaid tax and National Insurance and there was then a out the issue of overpaid tax and National Insurance and there was then a meeting involving Mr Kent meeting involving Mr Kent and Ms Heneghan on 15 December 2022. That led and Ms Heneghan on 15 December 2022. That led to cto complaints about Ms Heneghan which were pursued by Ms Stennett but omplaints about Ms Heneghan which were pursued by Ms Stennett but ultimately ran aground because the claimant was nultimately ran aground because the claimant was notot able to agree a date for able to agree a date for a meeting. a meeting. Case Number: 2211437/2023 51

[289]At this point, it appeared to the Tribunal that the claimant had had a At this point, it appeared to the Tribunal that the claimant had had a reasonable response: the respreasonable response: the respondent had explained how the situation came ondent had explained how the situation came about and that the issue about tax and National Insurance would need to be about and that the issue about tax and National Insurance would need to be addressed with HMRC. addressed with HMRC.

[290]Nonetheless when the claimant raised the matter further by writing to Mr Nonetheless when the claimant raised the matter further by writing to Mr Holland, the CEO, the matter Holland, the CEO, the matter wwas referredas referred to Mr Ajibola after he joined the to Mr Ajibola after he joined the respondent in Janrespondent in Januauary 2023. It was not entirely clear to the Tribunal what the ry 2023. It was not entirely clear to the Tribunal what the purpose of the report Mr Ajibola prepared for Mrpurpose of the report Mr Ajibola prepared for Mr Holland was and ultimately Holland was and ultimately nothing further appears to have happened in relation to Mr Holland’s nothing further appears to have happened in relation to Mr Holland’s involvement.involvement.

[291]We were not able to conclude that this complaint, which was not a formal We were not able to conclude that this complaint, which was not a formal grievance, had not been dealt with. The issue was that the claimant wantgrievance, had not been dealt with. The issue was that the claimant wanted ed the respondent to reimburse her for the tax and National Insurance the respondent to reimburse her for the tax and National Insurance dededucted ducted at too high a rate by at too high a rate by HMRC when she received payHMRC when she received paymentment of several months of several months salary in one installmentsalary in one installment. The respondent was correct to . The respondent was correct to ssay that that was a ay that that was a matter which could and shouldmatter which could and should be sorted out with HMRC directly. The claimant be sorted out with HMRC directly. The claimant had a substantive response to that effect before Mr Holland and Mr Ajibola had a substantive response to that effect before Mr Holland and Mr Ajibola became involved. became involved.

[292]We note that the respondent asked the claimant during the course of this We note that the respondent asked the claimant during the course of this complaint if there were other financial complaint if there were other financial consequences to her as a result of the consequences to her as a result of the delay in receiving her salary which they should consider. delay in receiving her salary which they should consider. The claimant told The claimant told them there were none, apparently them there were none, apparently oout of pride and a belief that they would be ut of pride and a belief that they would be ‘gloating’ about her misfortune. We do not consider that was a‘gloating’ about her misfortune. We do not consider that was a rational rational approach by the claimant and it deprived the respondent of the opportunity to approach by the claimant and it deprived the respondent of the opportunity to address any consequential losses the claimant might have suffered as a address any consequential losses the claimant might have suffered as a result of the delay in salary payments. result of the delay in salary payments.

[293]So far as the May 2023 grievance was concerned, the respondent split that So far as the May 2023 grievance was concerned, the respondent split that into two parts, one to be into two parts, one to be dealtdealt with by Ms Nurse and the other by Mr Kent.with by Ms Nurse and the other by Mr Kent.

[294]In relation to the part In relation to the part of of the grievances which was in the hands of Ms Nurse, the grievances which was in the hands of Ms Nurse, that was ultimately closed bthat was ultimately closed because the claimant would not attend a meeting to ecause the claimant would not attend a meeting to investigate and did ninvestigate and did notot respond to written questions within an extended respond to written questions within an extended deadline she was given by Ms Nurse. deadline she was given by Ms Nurse. MsMs Nurse had Nurse had begunbegun investigating with investigating with others in order to progress the grievance. others in order to progress the grievance.

[295]We did nWe did notot consconsider that there was a failure by the respondent to deider that there was a failure by the respondent to dealal with with that that partpart of the grievance . Ultimately it did not proceed because of the of the grievance . Ultimately it did not proceed because of the claimant’s lack of engagement within what were claimant’s lack of engagement within what were not unreasonable timescales. not unreasonable timescales. We note that it was left open to the claimantWe note that it was left open to the claimant to contact the respondent if she to contact the respondent if she wished to pursue the grievance. wished to pursue the grievance. Case Number: 2211437/2023 52

[296]So far as the part of the grievance allocated to MrSo far as the part of the grievance allocated to Mr Kent was concerned, we Kent was concerned, we considered that the claimant’s complaint about lack of impartiality was considered that the claimant’s complaint about lack of impartiality was reasonably made and should have been dealt with by Mr Ajibola by finding a reasonably made and should have been dealt with by Mr Ajibola by finding a new manager to consider that part of the grievance. new manager to consider that part of the grievance.

[297]We accordingly concluded that there was some detriment to the claimant in We accordingly concluded that there was some detriment to the claimant in how the respondent addressed her grievance in this respect. how the respondent addressed her grievance in this respect.

[298]Mr Ajibola said that he felt Mr Kent was best placed to hear these parts of the Mr Ajibola said that he felt Mr Kent was best placed to hear these parts of the grievance.grievance. It was clear to us for the coIt was clear to us for the correspondence that he mistakenly rrespondence that he mistakenly thought the claimant was saying that Ms Karabulut should hear this part of the thought the claimant was saying that Ms Karabulut should hear this part of the grievancegrievance. G. Given that she was even less impartial on these issues than Mr iven that she was even less impartial on these issues than Mr Kent, it seemed Kent, it seemed less less surprising to the Tribunal that he failed to get tsurprising to the Tribunal that he failed to get to grips o grips pproperlyroperly with the issue of Mr Kent’s suitability. with the issue of Mr Kent’s suitability. We considered carefully We considered carefully whether there were any facts from which we could reasonably conclude that whether there were any facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the protected acts influenced Mr Ajibola in making that decision. the protected acts influenced Mr Ajibola in making that decision.

[299]We did not so conclude. A striWe did not so conclude. A striking feature was that Mr Ajibola had allocated king feature was that Mr Ajibola had allocated the parts of the grievance where there was an overt allegation of race the parts of the grievance where there was an overt allegation of race discrimination to Ms Nurse, an ostensibly unconnected and impartial discrimination to Ms Nurse, an ostensibly unconnected and impartial manager. That seemed to us to undermine any inference that he was manager. That seemed to us to undermine any inference that he was inflinfluenced by the nature of the complaints in how he decided to allocate the uenced by the nature of the complaints in how he decided to allocate the parts of the grievance. If he was trying to sweep complaints of race parts of the grievance. If he was trying to sweep complaints of race discrimination under the carpet, it discrimination under the carpet, it seemedseemed more likely that he would have more likely that he would have allocated the race complaint to a manageallocated the race complaint to a manager who was not impartial.r who was not impartial.

[300]We also note overall that the respondent did not shut down the grievance We also note overall that the respondent did not shut down the grievance about race even when the claimant did not respond by deadlines and that the about race even when the claimant did not respond by deadlines and that the respondent remained willing to consider her complaintrespondent remained willing to consider her complaint after that pointafter that point. We did . We did nonot find facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the fact of the t find facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the fact of the protected acts had influenced Mr Ajibola’s handling of the grievance and in protected acts had influenced Mr Ajibola’s handling of the grievance and in particular the choice of Mr Kent to hear part of it and the decision not to particular the choice of Mr Kent to hear part of it and the decision not to remove Mr Kent. remove Mr Kent.

[301]We did not uWe did not uphold this claim. phold this claim. Issue: Issue: g. Hulya Karabulut and Sandra Marinou deliberately failed to complete change g. Hulya Karabulut and Sandra Marinou deliberately failed to complete change forms and this resulted in discrepancies in C’s pay in July 2022 forms and this resulted in discrepancies in C’s pay in July 2022 -- September 2022. September 2022.

[302]It was clearly highly unreasonable that the It was clearly highly unreasonable that the claimant suffered delays to her pay claimant suffered delays to her pay not once but not once but twice over this period. twice over this period.

[303]We accepted the evidence of Ms Karabulut that she did not receive We accepted the evidence of Ms Karabulut that she did not receive notification from HR about the change form; similarly we accepted Ms notification from HR about the change form; similarly we accepted Ms Case Number: 2211437/2023 53 Marinou’s evidence on that point Marinou’s evidence on that point,, which would have been relevant to the which would have been relevant to the period before she went period before she went on maternity leave in August 2022.on maternity leave in August 2022.

[304]We considered above whether the unreasonableness We considered above whether the unreasonableness reasonably reasonably gave rise togave rise to anan inference that the claimant’s race was a factor in relation to the later inference that the claimant’s race was a factor in relation to the later allegation against Ms Karabulut. We looked similarly at whether it allegation against Ms Karabulut. We looked similarly at whether it wwas as appropriate to draw an inference that the protected acts played a role.appropriate to draw an inference that the protected acts played a role.

[305]We accepted Mr Ajibola’s evidence that this was a type of unreasonableness We accepted Mr Ajibola’s evidence that this was a type of unreasonableness which had affected others and that it arose from problems with the which had affected others and that it arose from problems with the respondent’s systems.respondent’s systems.

[306]In the circumstancIn the circumstanceses,, just as we accepted Ms Karabulut’s evidence that the just as we accepted Ms Karabulut’s evidence that the need to fill in a change form was not brought to her attention by HR, we also need to fill in a change form was not brought to her attention by HR, we also accepted Ms Marinou’s evidenceaccepted Ms Marinou’s evidence to that effectto that effect. Had she been seeking to take . Had she been seeking to take out any antagonism she felt towards the claimanout any antagonism she felt towards the claimant for bringing a grievance t for bringing a grievance against her in this way, this would have been a very foolish way to go about it. against her in this way, this would have been a very foolish way to go about it. The issue would be corrected once the claimant noticed and Ms Marinou The issue would be corrected once the claimant noticed and Ms Marinou would put herself at risk of further complaints fwould put herself at risk of further complaints frorom the claimant, whm the claimant, whiich ch ccoulould d no doubt have no doubt have had serious consequences for Ms Marinouhad serious consequences for Ms Marinou if backed up by a if backed up by a paper trail showing Ms Marinou ignored a notification fpaper trail showing Ms Marinou ignored a notification frorom HR. m HR.

[307]Ms Karabulut exMs Karabulut explainedplained in in evidencevidence why there was some further delay once e why there was some further delay once the matter had been brought to the matter had been brought to hher attention whilst she tried to understand er attention whilst she tried to understand what had gone wrong. what had gone wrong.

[308]So whilst we considered that this had been a significant detriment to the So whilst we considered that this had been a significant detriment to the claimant aclaimant annd there had been significant faid there had been significant failings by the respondent, we did nlings by the respondent, we did notot find facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the claimant’s find facts from which we could reasonably conclude that the claimant’s grievance against Mrs Marinou had played a role in the detriment having grievance against Mrs Marinou had played a role in the detriment having occurred.occurred.

[309]We did not uphold this claim.We did not uphold this claim.

[310]Because we did not uphold any of thBecause we did not uphold any of the claimant’s claims, we did not have to go e claimant’s claims, we did not have to go on to consider issues about whether those claims had been presented in time. on to consider issues about whether those claims had been presented in time. Conclusion

Conclusion

[311]It follows from the above that all of the claimant’s complaints are dismissed. It follows from the above that all of the claimant’s complaints are dismissed. Case Number: 2211437/2023 54 Employment Judge Joffe