Mr C Bayfield and Mr C Jenner v Wunderman Thompson (UK) Ltd and Others: 2200540/2019 and 2200546/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2021 |
| Citation | 2200540/2019 and 2200546/2019 |
| Published date | 22 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case numbers: 2200540/2019V
2200546/2019V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
JUDGMENT
BETWEEN
CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS
MR C BAYFIELD
MR C JENNER
V WUNDERMAN THOMPSON (UK) LIMITED (1)
MR L PEON (2)
MS E HOYLE (3)
HELD AT: LONDON CENTRAL
ON: 8-12, 15-19 & 22-26 FEBRUARY 2021
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE: MR M EMERY
MEMBERS: MS S CAMPBELL
MS L JONES
REPRESENTATION:
For the claimant: Mr N Roberts (Counsel)
For the respondents: Mr R Leiper QC (Counsel)
Case numbers: 2200540/2019V
2200546/2019V
2
JUDGMENT
The claims of both claimants against the 1st respondent - dismissal:
1. The claims of direct sex discrimination succeed.
2. The claims of direct age discrimination fail and are dismissed.
3. The claims of direct sexual orientation discrimination fail and are dismissed.
4. The claims of direct race discrimination fail and are dismissed.
5. The claims of victimisation succeed.
6. The claims of harassment fail and are dismissed.
7. The claims of automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of making protected
disclosures fail and are dismissed.
8. The claims of unfair dismissal succeed.
The claims of both claimants against the 1st respondent – detriment during
employment:
9. The claims of direct sex discrimination succeed in part.
10. The claims of direct age discrimination fail and are dismissed.
11. The claims of direct sexual orientation discrimination fail and are dismissed.
12. The claims of direct race discrimination fail and are dismissed.
13. The claims of victimisation succeed in part.
14. The claims of harassment succeed in part.
15. The claims that the claimants made protected disclosures and were subject to
detriment fail and are dismissed.
The claims of both claimants against the 2nd respondent:
16. All claims fail and are dismissed.
The claims of both claimants against the 3rd respondent:
17. All claims fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
1. On 18 and 21 May 2018 the claimants complained about a presentation given
by two of the 1st respondent’s employees, one of whom was the 2nd respondent.
They say that their complaints amount to an Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010)
protected act and an Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) public interest
disclosure; that thereafter they were subjected to unlawful detriments,
discrimination on grounds of their race, age, sex and sexuality, they were
harassed and victimised, that their dismissals thereafter were automatically
unfair, discriminatory, amounted to victimisation, and harassment.
Case numbers: 2200540/2019V
2200546/2019V
3
2. The respondents deny all allegations, saying that the claimants were fairly
selected for redundancy for foreseeable reasons following a fair procedure in an
ongoing redundancy process, which was required because of loss of business
and revenue.
The Issues
Public interest disclosure / protected acts
3. The Claimants contend that the following were protected disclosures
alternatively protected acts:
a. Mr Bayfield:
i. Email to Ms Bruges on 18 May 2018
ii. Oral disclosures to Mr Peon & Ms Hoyle on 21 May 2018, in which
he alleges that he complained about the discriminatory nature of
the comment in the Presentation
b. Mr Jenner:
i. Email to Mr Peon & Ms Hoyle on 21 May 2018
ii. Oral disclosures to Mr Peon & Ms Hoyle on 21 May 2018, in which
he alleges that he complained about the discriminatory nature of
the comment in the Presentation
c. Did the alleged protected disclosures involve the disclosure of
information?
d. If so, was the disclosure of information in the public interest?
e. If so, did the disclosure of information tend to show (in each Claimant's
reasonable belief) that JWT had failed, was failing or was likely to fair to
comply with any legal obligation to which it was subject (by showing an
intention to discriminate against employees on the basis of protected
characteristics)?
f. Did the communications amount to a protected act: were
the Claimants doing something in connection with the Equality Act
2010?
Reason for dismissal
4. What was the reason for the Claimants' dismissal?
a. The Respondent contends that the Claimants were dismissed by reason
of redundancy (alternatively, for some other substantial reason) (ERA
s98(1)(b), (2)(c)).
b. The Claimants contend that the reason or principal reason for their
dismissal was that they had made a protected disclosure (contrary to
ERA s 103A).
To continue reading
Request your trial