Ms V Stanford v Lewisham Disability Coalition (a company limited by guarantee): 2301079/2016
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s complaint that she was harassed contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 is not well founded and is accordingly dismissed.[2]The Claimant’s complaint that she was victimised contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 is not well founded and is accordingly dismissed.[3]The Claimant’s complaint that she was unfairly dismissed is well founded and accordingly succeeds. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant compensation in the sum of £957.70[4]By consent, the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the sum of £670.89 gross as compensation for outstanding holiday pay.REASONS
[1]The Claimant claimed: 1.1. harassment by reason of disability; 1.2. victimisation by reason of disability; 1.3. unfair dismissal; and 1.4. outstanding holiday pay.[2]The Respondent admitted that the Claimant was a disabled person by reason of her epilepsy and asthma but otherwise resisted the claims.[3]At the commencement of the hearing the Respondent agreed to settle the Claimant’s holiday pay, which the Claimant accepted, as recorded in the Judgment above.[4]The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant on her own behalf and from the Respondent’s witnesses: Paul Wanogho (Trustee and Director); Simon Finaldi (Project Support Executive); and Roz Hardie (Director). The Tribunal was provided with a bundle of documents to which the parties variously referred. Further documents were provided to the Tribunal as the hearing progressed. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties made oral submissions.[5]The Claimant wished to introduce in evidence a recording, of one hour 40 minutes duration, which she had made on her telephone at the grievance and appeal hearings before Trustees on 29 April 2016. A letter dated 4 April 2017 from the Tribunal informed the Claimant of Employment Judge Martin’s direction that the Claimant must bring equipment to the Tribunal to play the recording. However, the Claimant failed to do so. The Tribunal therefore gave the Claimant the opportunity to inform Mr Bousfield of the extracts she wished to refer to (in anticipation that the extracts could be agreed between the parties) or to provide Mr Bousfield with the timings on the recording to which she wished to refer whereupon Mr Bousfield told the Tribunal that he would be able to play the recording on his laptop computer on the second day of the hearing. However, the Claimant failed to do so. The Claimant told the Tribunal that the recording was relevant to the extent that the Trustees did not know of the Claimant’s redundancy and the funding of members of staff. In the Tribunal’s view, the recording of the grievance and appeal hearings, which took place after the alleged acts of harassment and victimisation and after the Claimant’s redundancy dismissal, would be of limited, if any, relevance to the issues to be decided. The Tribunal had regard to the overriding objective, in particular dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to avoid delay so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the issues. The Tribunal ruled that it would not consider the recording. The only way in which the Tribunal could do so would be to huddle over the Claimant’s telephone and listen to the entire length of the recording which the Claimant said was somewhat muffled.Issues
[6]The issues had been discussed at a Preliminary Hearing conducted by