A cleaner at a university who was dismissed from her job has been awarded substantial damages after an Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld her complaints of unfair dismissal and victimisation.
The woman had commenced her employment in 2014. Relations between her and her line manager following a reorganisation in 2017 were described by the ET as challenging and ‘not cordial at all’. On two occasions she submitted a grievance about her line manager’s behaviour towards her. Her line manager made a formal complaint about her conduct, claiming that her behaviour was unmanageable and was having an adverse effect on the team. They subsequently agreed to attend mediation conducted by an external organisation, which led to an agreement between them.
The woman was later suspended following allegations that she had breached the mediation agreement by spreading rumours about her line manager and by undermining her and other staff members. After a disciplinary hearing concluded that she had breached the agreement, she received a final written warning and was given seven weeks to seek redeployment within the university, in accordance with her contractual notice period, on the basis that her position within the cleaning team had become untenable. She failed to find another role and was dismissed. At the time of her dismissal she was 69 years old. She subsequently obtained a job offer from a local authority, but this was withdrawn after the university provided an unsatisfactory reference.
She brought a number of ET complaints, including unfair dismissal and victimisation. Upholding her unfair dismissal complaint, the ET observed that the mediation agreement was a private agreement between her and her line manager which had been facilitated by the university to improve their working relationship. The university had not been a party to it, and it had not expressly provided that a breach might lead to disciplinary action. The process had also been procedurally flawed. Full details of the allegations against the woman had not been provided in the suspension letter, at the investigation meeting or during the disciplinary hearing. The investigation meeting had been approached on the basis that it was for her to disprove what the line manager had said, which was not the purpose of a fair investigation meeting. The university had also failed to hold an appeal hearing.
The ET also found that the woman had been victimised when the reference was provided. The reference had stated that she was in dispute with the university, and that statement was not required to provide a fair reference. The dispute referred to was an earlier ET complaint the woman had brought, which, along with her initial grievance, constituted a protected act. Describing the provision of the reference as ‘irresponsible and retaliatory’, the ET found that it had been provided because of the protected acts.
