Mr P Tilson v The British United Provident Association Ltd: 2200736/2019
| Judgment Date | 05 June 2021 |
| Citation | 2200736/2019 |
| Published date | 30 June 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
CASE NUMBER: 2200736/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr P Tilson
Respondent: The British United Provident Association Limited
Heard at: London Central
(Via Cloud Video Platform)
On: 27, 28, 29, and 30 April and 7 May
2021 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Joffe
Ms S Pendle
Ms E Flanagan
Appearances
For the claimant: Mr M Greaves, counsel
For the respondent: Ms K Nowell, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claim of wrongful dismissal is upheld.
2. The claims of direct sex discrimination are not upheld and are dismissed.
REASONS
Claims and issues
1. The issues in the case were agreed between the parties and were as follows. They
were adjusted to reflect the claimant’s reliance on a hypothetical comparator and in
the alternative Ms Twaites as an actual comparator in relation to one issue. They
were not in some respects clearly articulated as we discuss further in our conclusions.
DIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION
CASE NUMBER: 2200736/2019
2
In relation to paragraph 35 Grounds of Claim:
i) Is Coralie Smith an appropriate comparator in that there was no material
difference between the circumstances of Ms Smith and the Claimant aside
from sex?
ii) If so, did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably than Ms Smith:
- in that his alleged complaints regarding bullying by Ms Smith were not
investigated but complaints made of bullying against the Claimant were
investigated by the Respondent?
- in that the Claimant was dismissed following such allegations being made
and no action was taken against Ms Smith?
iii) Alternatively was the claimant treated less favourably in these regards than
a hypothetical comparator?
iv) If the Respondent did treat the Claimant less favourably than Ms Smith or a
hypothetical comparator, was this because of his sex?
In relation to paragraph 36 Grounds of Claim:
v) Is Kirsty Decker an appropriate comparator in that there was no material
difference between the circumstances of Ms Decker and the Claimant aside
from sex?
vi) If so, did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably than Ms Decker
or a hypothetical comparator in:
a) allowing Ms Decker to be accompanied to the investigation meeting
regarding her grievance but not inviting the Claimant to be
accompanied to his investigation meeting?
b) allegedly interviewing those witnesses suggested by Ms Decker but not
interviewing the witnesses requested by the Claimant (para 36.2
Grounds of Claim)?
In relation to paragraph 37 Grounds of Claim:
vii) Was the Claimant treated less favourably than a hypothetical female
comparator against whom allegations of bullying behaviour that appear to
have merit were made and against whom concerns over their attitude to
males were raised, in that:
a) A comparator would have been informed of the allegations which raised
concerns over their attitude to men whereas the Claimant was allegedly
not told how the allegations regarding his attitude to women were
arrived at (para 37.1 Grounds of Claim)?
b) A comparator would have been told the name of the grievant when the
Claimant was not told the identity of the grievant (para 37.2 Grounds of
Claim)?
c) A comparator would have been permitted to put forward her side of the
events when the Claimant was allegedly not given any explanation of
the complaints so was allegedly unable to defend himself (para 37.3
Grounds of Claim)?
d) A comparator would have been subject to a reasonable investigation
before being dismissed whilst the Claimant was allegedly not subject to
a reasonable investigation before being dismissed (para 37.4 Grounds
of Claim)?
CASE NUMBER: 2200736/2019
3
e) If a comparator was dismissed at the end of the investigation, she would
have been paid notice, whilst the Claimant was not paid for his notice
period (para 37.5 Grounds of Claim)?
vii) Was the Claimant’s dismissal less favourable treatment because of his sex,
contrary to section 13(1) EqA
Findings of fact
The hearing
2. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. For the respondent we heard from
Ms Charlene Mansell, previously an HR business partner for the respondent, Mr
Philip Hunt, formerly head of IT security strategy for the respondent, Mr Matt Spiers,
at the relevant time global security transformation and assurance director, and Deepa
Shah, HR business partner at the relevant time. We had an agreed bundle running
to 329 pages.
3. The respondent conceded wrongful dismissal at the outset of the hearing.
Chronology
4. On 8 May 2017 the claimant started employment with the respondent as a change
agent in the information security and governance team. The respondent is a well
known private healthcare provider with a large number of staff and significant
resources.
Relevant policies and procedures
5. The respondent has a detailed grievance procedure which makes provision for
grievances to be raised formally or informally. Where a formal grievance is raised
there are procedural stipulations including
5.4 Right to be accompanied
You may bring a companion to any formal meetings held under the grievance
procedure. This companion may be a fellow Bupa employee or a trade union
representative. You must tell the person holding the meeting who your chosen
companion is in good time before the meeting.
…
To continue reading
Request your trial