Ms P Sun v CRU International Ltd and Ms R Gordon: 2203672/2020 and 2204811/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 2021 |
| Citation | 2203672/2020 and 2204811/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 08 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case Number: 2203672/2020 & 2204811/2020
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondents
Ms P. Sun (1) CRU International Ltd
(2) Ms Rebecca Gordon
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal
On: 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 May 2021 (14 May in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Adkin
Mr T Robinson
Mr T Harrington-Roberts
Representations
For the Claimant: Claimant in person
For the Respondent: Mr J Arnold, Counsel
JUDGMENT
(1) The claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to section
20, 21 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) succeeds in respect of PCP2 only
(strict deadlines for Performance Improvement Plan).
(2) All other claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 are not well founded
and are dismissed:
a. Remaining claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments;
b. Direct disability discrimination (section 13);
c. Direct race discrimination (section 13);
d. Discrimination arising from disability (section 15);
e. Indirect disability discrimination (section 19);
f. Harassment related to disability (section 26).
Case Number: 2203672/2020 & 2204811/2020
- 2 -
(3) Claims for unpaid notice pay and holiday pay brought under the Employment
Rights Act 1996 are not well founded and are dismissed.
REASONS
Procedural matters
1. This hearing took place with the Tribunal members, parties and observers all
joining remotely by CVP. Baring a couple of minor hitches the technology
worked well.
2. There were a series of applications made by the parties, for which oral reasons
given and written reasons not requested during the course of the hearing.
Either party may request written reasons within 14 days of the date that this
judgment is sent out.
The Claim
3. The agreed list of issues is appended to these written reasons.
Findings of fact
The parties
4. The Claimant commenced working for the First Respondent on 26 April 2019
as Consulting Operations Manager, reporting directly to the First Respondent’s
CEO, Mrs Rebecca Gordon who is the Second Respondent.
5. The First Respondent is a consultancy which provides business intelligence on
the global metals, mining and fertilizer industries through market analysis, price
assessments, consultancy and events.
History
6. Before she began working for the First Respondent the Claimant had taken a
lengthy career break. She had no experience of consulting, nor the sectors in
which the First Respondent specialises i.e. metals, mining and fertiliser
production. She did have a Level 1 AAT qualification in accounting.
7. She had successfully run and sold a business which provided services to
students. Mrs Gordon explained to the Tribunal that this was one of the things
that made the Claimant an attractive recruit. Although she didn’t have any line
management responsibility, she had run her own business, which Mrs Gordon
hope would be of assistance in the role which she had in mind for the Claimant.
8. The role that the Claimant was recruited into was a new one. The role was to
design, implement and monitor process and systems that contribute to internal
efficiency gains and ensure maximum profitability from the First Respondent’s
Case Number: 2203672/2020 & 2204811/2020
- 3 -
activities across multiple geographies. The First Respondent has a number of
international offices including offices in the UK, US, China, Japan, India, Brazil
Chile and Australia.
9. The introductory part of the job description for the role contained the following:
“Within CRU Consulting, the Consulting Operations Manager is
responsible for designing, implementing and monitoring
processes and systems that contribute to internal efficiency gains
and ensuring we deliver maximum profitability from our activities.
You will be reporting to CRU Consulting’s Management Team and
will be supported by admin contacts from our global offices. You
will be driving best practice in the use of both current and future
systems and processes and identifying changes required to
support an expanding global workforce. You will be responsible
for timely reporting of consulting data on a monthly basis. You will
demonstrate excellent communication skills and proactively
identify, prioritise, and delegate tasks without close supervision.
In addition, you will be continually responsive to the needs to the
business as part of the ongoing pursuit of operational excellence.”
10. The other element of the role was to line manage two administrative staff based
in the London office.
11. In or around September 2019 the Claimant started to sit next to Mrs Gordon.
12. Also around this time the Claimant took over line management responsibility
for Ms Tiffany Ault, who had previously reported directly to Mrs Gordon. The
Tribunal received a written witness statement from Ms Ault, but she did not give
oral evidence. We accept the Claimant’s evidence that as soon as the reporting
changed Ms Ault’s turned cold. This is supported by contemporaneous
communication within the bundle.
Anxiety
13. On 23 October 2019 the Claimant spoke to the First Respondent’s external
occupational health provider, reporting significant feelings of anxiety and
depressive symptoms. This was at the prompting of Mrs Gordon, as the note
records. Mrs Gordon acknowledged in her evidence to us that the suggestion
to speak to occupational health was prompted by a concern about the
Claimant’s health.
14. Based on the occupational health note and the findings of the First
Respondent’s own appeal process, the Tribunal finds that the First and Second
Respondent had knowledge of the Claimant’s disability of anxiety from this
point onward.
To continue reading
Request your trial