Ms A Harpham v Mansfield Community and Voluntary Service: 2602081/2016
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Citation | 2602081/2016 |
| Published date | 17 April 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
RESERVED Case No: 2602081/2016
Page 1 of 112
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Annette Harpham
Respondents: Ian Newton (R1)
Mansfield Community & Voluntary Service (R2)
Heard at: Nottingham
On: 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th June 2017
19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 28th February 2018
& 22nd March 2018 (In Chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Heap
Members: Mr. J Hill
Mr. T O’Dwyer
Representation
Claimant: In Person
Respondents: Mr. A Tinnion - Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s complaints of detriment contrary to Section 47B
Employment Rights Act 1996 fail and are dismissed.
2. The Claimant’s complaint of automatically unfair dismissal contrary to
Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed.
3. The Claimant’s complaints of victimisation contrary to Section 27 Equality
Act 2010 fail and are dismissed.
4. The Claimant’s complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to Section
94 Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded and succeeds.
5. A date for a Preliminary hearing conducted by telephone for the purposes
of case management and to deal with listing the claim for a Remedy
hearing will follow in due course.
RESERVED Case No: 2602081/2016
Page 2 of 112
REASONS
BACKGROUND AND THE ISSUES
1. This is a claim brought by Ms. Annette Harpham (hereinafter referred to as
“The Claimant”) against her now former employer, Mansfield Community &
Voluntary Service (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Respondent”) and
also against a further individual Respondent, Mr. Ian Newton (hereinafter
referred to as the “First Respondent”) who for a period of time line managed
the Claimant during the period of her employment with the Second
Respondent with which we are primarily concerned.
2. The claim was presented by way of a Claim Form received by the
Employment Tribunal on 12th December 2016. The claim is one of
automatically unfair dismissal contrary to Section 103A Employment Rights
Act 1996; detriment contrary to Section 47B of that Act; ordinary unfair
dismissal contrary to Section 94 of that Act and of victimisation contrary to
the provisions of Section 27 Equality Act 2010. All claims are resisted by
the Respondent, not only on substantive grounds but, in some instances,
also on jurisdictional grounds as we shall come to further below.
3. Following submission of the ET3 Response Form and in the usual way the
matter came before Employment Judge Hutchinson for the purposes of a
Preliminary hearing for case management on 1st February 2017 (see pages
40-44 of the hearing bundle).
4. Employment Judge Hutchinson set out at length the basis of the claim being
pursued by the Claimant. That included identification of the protected
disclosures on which the Claimant relied for the purposes of her
whistleblowing complaints advanced, as set out above, under both Sections
47B and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996.
5. Those protected disclosures were identified as being as follows:
(a) A grievance presented against Wynne Garnett on 27th May
2015 in which the Claimant said that she had disclosed that
Wynne Garnett had been paid through Big Assist, Big Lottery
funding awarded to the Second Respondent which equated
to a conflict of interest and that £3,500 of this funding had
been transferred to the First Respondent of Scintilla (a
subsidiary of the Second Respondent);
(b) That in a meeting with Paul Webster of the Second
Respondent on 14th December 2015, she had raised again
the issue about the aforementioned conflict of interest;
(c) That on 4th January 2016 the Claimant had made a
complaint to Paul Webster in his capacity as Chairman of the
Second Respondent about the behaviour of the First
Respondent
1
;
1
The Claimant accepted on day 12 of the hearing before us that this was not a protected
disclosure and that she no longer relied upon it for the purposes of the claim.
RESERVED Case No: 2602081/2016
Page 3 of 112
(d) That on 22nd March 2016 in a meeting with Peter Clarke of
the Second Respondent, the Claimant had again raised the
issues concerning the First Respondent and Wynne Garnett;
(e) That on 20th April 2016 in a further meeting with Peter
Clarke, the Claimant reiterated her concerns (those being
the concerns referred to at paragraphs (a) to (d) above) and
was assured that he would investigate matters.
6. The Claimant has expanded, however, her first disclosure on the basis
that it is said that that also now encompasses comments made in a
grievance hearing and in her appeal against the outcome of that
grievance, in addition to the grievance letter itself.
7. Employment Judge Hutchinson also identified with the Claimant the
alleged detriments complained of. In this regard, he identified with the
Claimant 13 separate allegations of detriment, alongside the complaint of
automatically unfair dismissal. In the alternative to being acts of
detriment, the 13 allegations were also identified as being pursued as
complaints of victimisation contrary to Section 27 Equality Act 2010.
8. Those acts were identified as follows:
• That on 30th July 2015 Wynne Garnett had circulated two documents at a
Board meeting of the Second Respondent which had been written by
himself and the First Respondent and which had been critical of the
Claimant;
• On 26th January 2016 the First Respondent had fabricated a grievance
against the Claimant, interviewing her colleagues in an attempt to gather
evidence against her;
• In April 2016 a virus came through the Claimant’s computer destroying her
and colleagues’ electronic files. These were restored for other staff within
a matter of days but it took two months to restore her files;
• On 27th May 2016 the Claimant was excluded from a meeting that was
held between Paul Webster, the First Respondent and members of the
Mansfield and Ashfield Clinical Commissioning Group;
• On 1st April 2016 the Claimant requested sight of the Mansfield and
Ashfield Clinical Commissioning Group budget and that was refused by
Patricia Shaw and Peter Clarke;
• That on 15th June 2016 the Claimant tried to order a toner for her office
printer and that was refused;
• In a period up to 14th July 2016 at the behest of the First Respondent her
files were covertly gone through;
• After the Claimant commenced a period of sickness absence on 15th July
2016 she was not contacted by anyone from the Second Respondent and
To continue reading
Request your trial