Ms N Daoud (maiden name Boukhannouche) v Bvlgari (UK) Ltd: 2206904/2018
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2021 |
| Citation | 2206904/2018 |
| Published date | 03 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case Number: 2206904/2018
1 of 63
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms N Daoud (maiden name Boukhannouche)
Respondent: Bvlgari (UK) Ltd
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal
On: 26, 27, 28 , 29 November 2019 and 3 December 2019
In chambers 4 December 2019 and 23 December 2020
Before: Employment Judge Quill; Ms H Edwards; Ms W Blake Ranken
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms R Azib, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
(1) The Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.
(2) All of the complaints of harassment fail.
(3) All of the complaints of victimisation fail.
(4) The Respondent did not make unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s
wages.
REASONS
Introduction
1. Firstly, Employment Judge Quill would like to apologise to both sides for the
considerable delay in sending out this judgment, caused partially by the pandemic
and partially by personal circumstances.
The Claims
2. Unfair dismissal; harassment related to race; victimisation; unauthorised deduction
from wages.
Case Number: 2206904/2018
2 of 63
The Issues
3. The issues, as identified at a preliminary hearing on 24 May 2019 were as listed
below. However, the Respondent made clear that it was not seeking to argue that
the dismissal fell within Section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and
therefore we did not have to decide that. For ease of reference, the original
numbering is retained.
Unfair dismissal
1. What was the reason for the Claimant's dismissal? In particular, was the Claimant
dismissed because her behaviour at work had led to a serious and irreparable
breakdown in the working relationship between her and the Respondent such that
the Respondent lost trust and confidence in her?
2. Was the reason for the Claimant's dismissal a substantial reason of a kind such
as justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the Claimant held?
3. If the answer to point 2 is no, did the reason for the dismissal fall within subsection
98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
4. If the answer to points 2 or 3 is yes:
4.1. Was the dismissal fair or unfair in all the circumstances?
4.2. Was the decision within the band of reasonable responses which a reasonable
employer could adopt?
Harassment
5. Did Nabeel Tariq engage in the following alleged unwanted conduct
5.1. Did Mr Tariq say to the Claimant that “you don’t have a management style and
appearance to become a Deputy Store Manager” on or around 6 July 2018?
5.2. Did Mr Tariq say to the Claimant that “We do not talk English in that way” on
or around 3 July 2018?
5.3. Did Mr Tariq say to the Claimant:
5.3.1. On 4 July 2018, in response to the word "sacked", that “This is an
inappropriate word to use with your manager”?
5.3.2. On 5 July 2018, in response the word "fun", that “This is an inappropriate
word to use with your manager”?
5.4. Did Mr Tariq say, at last on three occasions, “We don’t cross arms when we
talk to managers, this expresses that you are in an attacking position” on 3, 4 and
6 July 2018?
5.5. On or around 3 & 4 July 2018:
Case Number: 2206904/2018
3 of 63
5.5.1. Did the Claimant tell Mr Tariq that English was her third language, that
she was still learning it and that she was not born in the UK?
5.5. 2. Did Mr Tariq say in response to the Claimant's comment at 5.5.1 that
“this is the problem”?
5.6. On or around 5 July 2018 (and similarly on or around 26 July 2018), did Mr
Tariq say if “I receive an email from you going forward it will be a conversation sat
down and documented”?
5.7. On 8 July 2018:
5.7.1. Did Mr Tariq say to the Claimant “go and look for it yourself” in response
to the Claimant asking him where the safe key was?
5.7.2. Did Mr Tariq, during a stock take give the Claimant a new list of
accessories discrepancies to check and subsequently say to her “I am not going
to provide you with help and I am asking you to go and do it now, end of
conversation”?
6. If the Claimant establishes conduct referred in paragraph 5 above, was such
conduct related to the protected characteristic of the Claimant’s race? It is recorded
that the Claimant identifies as North African.
7. If the conduct is found to be related to the protected characteristic of race, did it
have the purpose or effect of (a) violating Claimant's dignity or (b) creating an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the
Claimant. If it did not have that purpose, did it have that effect, taking into account:
7.1. the perception of the Claimant
7.2. The other circumstances of the case; and
7.3. Whether it is reasonable for the conduct have that effect?
Victimisation
8. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the victimisation claims or are they out
of time?
9. If necessary would it be just and equitable to apply a time limit in excess of 3
months?
10. Did the Claimant's email to Ms Santini of 4 August 2017 amount to a protected
act pursuant section 27(2) of the Equality Act 2010?
11. If the of 4 August 2017 amounted to a protected act, did the Respondent subject
the Claimant to any of the following detriments as a result of that act
11.1. Deciding not to promote the Claimant on 20 October 2017?
To continue reading
Request your trial