Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Ms. A Chindipha, was employed as Compliance Manager by Under the Hammer Auctions Limited from 26 September to 21 December 2022. The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct, alleging breaches of company policies including unauthorized use of a personal laptop, sending confidential files to a personal email account, and deleting files. The Tribunal found that the Teramind IT monitoring system showed no activity on her company laptop from 7 October to 21 December 2022, supporting the respondent's claims. The claimant was awarded £1,894.63 for unauthorized wage deductions in December 2022 but lost claims for race discrimination and harassment. The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed due to insufficient evidence linking her alleged negligence to the £13,250 loss.
Issues
- The Tribunal considered whether the respondent's failure to invite the claimant to a Negotiator event in November-December 2022 constituted direct race discrimination. The claimant argued she was excluded due to her race (being the only Black employee), while the respondent maintained that Compliance Managers were not appropriate attendees. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the exclusion to race and dismissed the claim.
- The Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorized deductions from the claimant's December 2022 wages by withholding payment for 1-21 December 2022. The deduction of £1,894.63 was ruled unlawful, and the respondent was ordered to pay this amount.
- The claimant argued that the respondent's refusal to pay her and the use of abusive language in dismissal communications constituted racial harassment. The Tribunal found the conduct was not related to race but based on the employer's belief that she had committed misconduct. The harassment claim was dismissed.
- The Tribunal determined that the claimant's use of a personal laptop for work, deletion of files, and emailing confidential data to her personal account breached company policies and constituted gross misconduct. The employer's decision to dismiss was upheld as justified.
- The claimant alleged she was denied branded merchandise (T-shirts and fleeces) from October 2022 onward due to racial discrimination. The Tribunal found that while the clothing was ordered and available in the office, the claimant never collected it and provided no evidence connecting the failure to supply it to her race. The claim was dismissed.
- The claimant alleged she was constructively dismissed due to racial discrimination. The Tribunal found she was expressly dismissed for gross misconduct (breaching IT policies by using a personal device and leaking confidential data), not constructively dismissed. The dismissal was determined to be unrelated to her race.
Holdings
- The claimant's complaints of breach of contract, direct race discrimination, and race-related harassment are dismissed. The Tribunal found no evidence linking these issues to race or other protected characteristics.
- The claimant's complaint of unauthorized deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorized deduction for the period 1 December – 21 December 2022 and is ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,894.63.
- The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract regarding the claimant's alleged failure to work between 6 October and 21 December 2022 is not well-founded and is dismissed.
Remedies
The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £1,894.63 for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of the period 1 December – 21 December 2022.
Monetary Damages
1894.63
Legal Principles
- The tribunal refused to admit 22 late-submitted documents as they would have required adjourning the hearing for months. The decision emphasized fairness and proportionality, noting the evidence was not necessary for a fair disposal of the proceedings.
- The tribunal applied a two-stage burden of proof for direct discrimination and harassment claims. First, the claimant must establish facts that could lead to a conclusion of unlawful discrimination. If this is achieved, the respondent must then prove that the treatment was not because of the protected characteristic.
- All findings of fact, including whether the claimant was working on a personal device or breached policies, were made on the balance of probabilities. This standard was applied to assess both the claimant's and respondent's evidence.
Precedent Name
- Richmond Pharmacology V Miss A Dhalliwell
- Bahl v Law Society
- Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Shaw v B and W Group Ltd
- Grant v HM Land Registry & EHRC
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Anya v University of Oxford & Another
- Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority
- Igen v Wong and Others
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Mqubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Employment Foundation Trust
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Johnston v Veritas Technologies (UK) Ltd
- West London Mental Health NHS Trust v. Chhabra
- Neary and anor v Dean of Westminster
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
- Flood
- Hill
- Malatesta
Passage Text
- 41. [...] These comments were not related to race. [...] This comment was not related to or on the grounds of race. Therefore the harassment claim of the claimant must fail on this ground alone.
- 1. The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay in respect of the period 1 December – 21 December 2022. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the gross sum of £1,894.63 deducted from pay.
- 39.3 C cannot get anywhere close to showing the 'something more' that is required to establish the first stage of the two stage burden of proof test. In any event the respondent has clearly established the reason for the dismissal, and we were satisfied that this was in no sense whatsoever related to the claimant's race.