Mr M Gago and Miss K Gorska (now known as Mrs K Gago) v Uneek Clothing Company Ltd: 1600212/2016
| Judgment Date | 22 May 2017 |
| Citation | 1600212/2016 |
| Published date | 20 June 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
Case No. 1600212/2016
1600282/2016
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Gago
Miss K Gorska (now known as Mrs K Gago)
Respondent:
Uneek Clothing Company Ltd
HELD AT:
Manchester ON: 11, 12 and 13 January
and (in the absence of
the parties) on 3 April
2017
BEFORE: Employment Judge Horne
Members: Mr G Pennie
Mrs J C Ormshaw
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant:
Respondent:
Mr B Slater, lay representative
Dr K Tshibangu, Director of HR
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The respondent is liable for harassment of Miss Gorska by Mr Akhtar.
2. The respondent harassed Miss Gorska for rejecting Mr Akhtar’s unwanted
conduct.
3. The respondent is liable for harassment of Mr Gago by Mr Akhtar.
4. The respondent victimised both claimants by terminating their assignment.
5. The respondent did not discriminate against Miss Gorska because of her sex.
6. The respondent did not breach regulation 13 of the Agency Workers
Regulations 2010.
7. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine any complaint of breach of
regulation 14 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, because such a
complaint was advanced against a different respondent against whom the
claim was withdrawn.
Case No. 1600212/2016
1600282/2016
2
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1. There will be a separate hearing to determine the claimants’ remedy.
2. The time allocation for the hearing will be two days.
3. Within 14 days of the date on which this order was sent to the parties, the
parties must inform the tribunal in writing of:
3.1 Any dates to avoid when listing the remedy hearing
3.2 Any case management orders necessary for the effective preparation
for the remedy hearing and
3.3 Any representations they wish to make about the time allocation for the
remedy hearing.
REASONS
Preliminary
1. The tribunal apologies for the delay in sending this judgment and reasons. The
parties deserve an explanation. For various reasons, the hearing could not be
completed within the 3-day time allocation. The tribunal therefore listed the case
for a further day for deliberation in the absence of the parties. Unfortunately, one
of the tribunal members was unwell and unable to attend on that date. Owing to
pressure on the tribunal’s hearing lists, the employment judge was not available
to return to Liverpool to write the judgment and reasons until 18 May 2017.
2. Since the presentation of their claim, Miss Gorska and Mr Gago have married.
Miss Gorska is now Mrs Gago, but in these reasons we will refer to her as Miss
Gorska as this is how she was known at the time of the events giving rise to the
claim.
Complaints and issues
3. By claim forms presented on 9 February 2016 the claimants brought several
complaints. At the final hearing, the parties confirmed that the complaints on
which we had to adjudicate were as follows:
3.1 Harassment of Miss Gorska, related to her sex, contrary to sections
26(1) and 41(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”);
3.2 Harassment of a sexual nature of Miss Gorska, contrary to sections
26(2) and 41(2) of EqA;
3.3 Harassment of Miss Gorska for rejecting unwanted conduct, contrary to
section 26(3) and 41(2) of EqA;
To continue reading
Request your trial