S Hippolyte v House of Commons Commission: 2206663/2018
| Judgment Date | 07 August 2019 |
| Citation | 2206663/2018 |
| Published date | 19 August 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 2206663/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: S Hippolyte
Respondent: House of Commons Commission
Heard at: London Central
On: 25, 29, 30, 31 July, and (in chambers) on 2 August 2019
Before: Employment Judge Quill, Mr I McLaughlin, Mr S Williams
Representation
Claimant: In Person
Respondent: Ms K Balmer
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
i. The claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of race contrary to
sections 13 and 39 of Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”) fails;
ii. The claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability contrary
to sections 13 and 39 of EA 2010 fails;
iii. The claim of harassment related to race contrary to sections 26 and 40
of EA 2010 fails;
iv. The claim of harassment related to disability contrary to sections 26 and
40 of EA 2010 fails;
v. The claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of Employment
Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) fails.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Respondent, the House of Commons Commission, is the statutory body
responsible for the administration of the House of Commons. It employs
approximately 2,500 staff across many different departments, including the
Parliamentary Security Department (“PSD”). PSD is responsible for the
security of the House of Commons.
Case No: 2206663/2018
2
2. There are approximately 350 operational security staff involved in the
provision of search and screening for visitors and vehicles, controlling access
to buildings, patrolling and providing security for events, as well as operating
a control room.
3. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Security Officer (“SO”).
The Claimant had continuity of employment which commenced on 27
January 1993. Prior to 2016 the Respondent’s security operations were
carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”). On 1 April 2016 the
security operations for the House of Commons transferred to the
Respondent, and the Claimant’s contract of employment transferred due to
the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).
4. The Claimant was dismissed with effect from 16 August 2018.
The Claims
5. The Claimant brought the following claims against the Respondent:
i. direct discrimination on the grounds of race contrary to sections 13 and
39 of Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”);
ii. direct discrimination on the grounds of disability contrary to sections 13
and 39 of EA 2010;
iii. harassment related to race contrary to sections 26 and 40 of EA 2010;
and
iv. harassment related to disability contrary to sections 26 and 40 of EA
2010; and
v. unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of Employment Rights Act 1996
(“ERA 1996”).
6. In relation to each of the disability claims, the Claimant relied on two alleged
medical conditions, which were a gastro/gynaecological condition and a
mental health condition respectively.
7. For each one of the Equality Act claims, the Claimant relied on the same 5
allegations. These had been agreed as issues at a Preliminary Hearing.
a. Allegation One: by the respondent investigating in 2016, an incident
when it was alleged the claimant shouted at someone coming into the
building; it being the claimant's case that she did shout, but others also
shouted and were not investigated.
b. Allegation Two: by the respondent alleging that the claimant, on 9
March 2017, failed to allow a severely disabled member of the public
to be accompanied by a carer.
c. Allegation Three: in 2017 by the claimant's manager, Ms Elaine
Young, coming into the claimant's work area and pushing her forearm
against claimant's chest to stop the claimant from leaving the room.
d. Allegation Four: by the respondent, in 2018, accusing the claimant of
using inappropriate language. The respondent alleged that the
claimant used the words “fuck off” is to her manager Ms Gina Beston
and then said words to the effect of "fuck off or I will fart [possibly piss]
in your mouth". The claimant accepts that the words were used, but
says that they were used in jest as the manager was a friend.
To continue reading
Request your trial