The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of sex under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and of harassment on the grounds of sex under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, both succeed; and that the claimant’s remaining claims all fail, and are dismissed. The case shall now be appointed to a hearing to determine remedy.
REASONS
[1]In this case, the claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 3 August 2018, in which she submitted a number of complaints against the respondent. In particular, she complained that she had been discriminated ETZ4(WR) against on the grounds of sex contrary to sections 13 and 39, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010; suffered detriment on grounds related to trade union membership or activities contrary to section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and that she was automatically unfairly dismissed on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure to the respondent contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).[2]The respondent submitted an ET3 in which they resisted all of the claimant’s claims.[3]Further particulars of the claims were provided by the claimant in the form of a table.[4]A hearing was listed to take place commencing on 6 August 2019, and that hearing continued on 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 August 2019. Submissions were heard from the parties on 12 and 13 August, the former having been curtailed by the illness of one of the Tribunal members, necessitating an early adjournment.[5]The claimant was represented by her solicitor, Mr R Clarke. The respondent was represented by their solicitor, Mr W Lane.[6]The claimant gave evidence on her own behalf, and called as a witness Mark Anthony McHugh, Regional Officer for the Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union.[7]The respondent called to give evidence the following witnesses:• Michelle Lisa Palmer (known as Lisa), Restaurant General Manager;• Alan Paterson, Cook;• Wioleta Walczyk, formerly Assistant Manager; and• Ann Marie McVey, Office Manager.[8]The parties presented a joint bundle of productions, to which reference was made throughout the proceedings, and to which some additions were made during the hearing.[9]At the start of the hearing, it was raised that the claim still appeared to have been listed as against C. However, on inspection of the Note following Preliminary Hearing by Employment Judge Porter dated 4 October 2018, the Tribunal noted that the claim against that respondent had been dismissed (43).[10]During the course of submissions, parties agreed that the Tribunal would only deal with the issue of liability in this hearing, and that remedy would be the subject of a separate hearing if required.[11]Following the conclusion of the evidence, I raised with the parties a matter which had previously been canvassed before