Mr C Watson v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd: 3201492/2018
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2019 |
| Citation | 3201492/2018 |
| Published date | 23 January 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
Case Number: 3201492/2018
1
RM
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr C Watson
Respondent: Financial Ombudsman Service Limited
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 22, 23, 24 May 2019 and 19 June 2019
Before: Employment Judge Russell
Members: Mrs K Freeman
Mr D Ross
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr R Hignett (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
(1) The claim of constructive unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
(2) All claims of disability discrimination fail and are dismissed.
(3) The claim of victimisation fails and is dismissed.
(4) The claim of unauthorised deduction from wages fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
1 By a claim form presented on 17 July 2018 the Claimant brings complaints of
constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, sex discrimination and for unpaid
wages. The Respondent resists all claims.
2 At a Preliminary Hearing on 15 October 2018, the sex discrimination claim was
withdrawn and the issues were agreed as follows:
Case Number: 3201492/2018
2
Constructive unfair dismissal
2.1 Did the Respondent conduct itself, without reasonable and proper cause, in
a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously to damage the
relationship of trust and confidence between it and the Claimant? The
Claimant relies upon the following conduct:
(a) May or June 2017: Mr Farmer (the Claimant’s line manager) falsely
stated that he had met with the Claimant to discuss a customer
complaint.
(b) 8 August 2017: the Claimant was required to be absent from work
(suspended) until Occupational Health approved his return.
(c) Around 12 September 2017: Mr Wightman refused the Claimant’s
request for a formal investigation of the allegations against Mr Farmer.
(d) Between August 2017 and 22 September 2017: the Respondent
required the Claimant to pay a fee in order to access his employee file,
then sent him an electronic version in an unreadable format and, after
the intervention of his MP, sent the Claimant a paper copy which was
not personally addressed to him by name.
(e) Late September 2017: Ms Sasha Chaudhri and Ms Tania Diggines
improperly denied breach of data protection requirements in respect of
the employee file.
(f) 27 November 2017: the Claimant was refused permission to record a
grievance hearing and was told that he would be subject to disciplinary
action if he did record it.
(g) Late 2017: HR deliberately communicating with the Claimant at the end
of the day in order to increase the Claimant’s anxiety.
(h) 5 January 2018: grievance outcome which made unwarranted
‘recommendations’ about the Claimant’s communication style, tone and
language and instructed him to make no further complaints and not to
go to the information Commissioner’s office.
(i) From 15 January 2018 unwarranted and untrue complaints about the
Claimant’s performance, including singling him out where all in short-
term lending division has cases outstanding but the Claimant was the
only person disciplined.
(j) 19 February 2018: Ms Sloan’s recommendation that there should be a
formal disciplinary hearing whilst deceitfully maintaining that she did not
know the potential consequences of the investigation and doing so in
order to avoid paying company sick pay.
Case Number: 3201492/2018
3
(k) 19 February 2018: the meeting with Ms Sloan was deliberately
scheduled for that date in order to create a mental breakdown on the
part of the Claimant and/or to provoke evidence of gross misconduct.
(l) 1 March 2018 Claimant’s grievance against Ms Sloan was improperly
considered at the same time as the disciplinary hearing, rather than as
a separate procedure which should have been heard first.
(m) 5 March 2018, Mr Ian Smith ostracised the Claimant upon his return to
work by moving him from the ninth floor to the fourth floor, away from
his short-term lending team, and requiring him to find his own desk.
(n) 15 March 2018: Mr Steve Dickey (hearing the grievance and
disciplinary) changed the allegations from competence to behaviour.
(o) 21 March 2018 providing the Claimant with only a redacted copy of
feedback from Ms Lisa Lowe given in November 2017.
2.2 Did the Claimant affirm the contract of employment before resigning? He
Claimant resigned on notice given on 29 March 2018 and relies upon (n) and
(o) above as the last straw(s).
2.3 Did the Claimant resign in response to the Respondent’s conduct?
2.4 If the Claimant was dismissed, was the reason or principal reason a
potentially fair one in accordance with sections 98(1) and (2) of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”); and, if so, was the dismissal fair or
unfair in accordance with ERA section 98(4)?
2.5 If the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and the remedy is compensation,
should there be any reduction:
(a) to reflect the possibility that the Claimant would still have been
dismissed had a fair and reasonable procedure been followed (Polkey);
and/or
(b) because the Claimant had by blameworthy or culpable actions, caused
or contributed to dismissal to any extent.
Disability
2.6 Was the Claimant a disabled person in accordance with the Equality Act
2010 (“EQA”) at all relevant times because of the mental impairment(s) of
anxiety and depression?
Section 26 EQA: harassment related to disability
2.7 Did the Respondent engage in the conduct set out at paragraphs 2.1 (d), (e),
(f), (g), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n) and (o) and/or the following additional conduct:
To continue reading
Request your trial