The judgments are unbiased legal decisions on the actions of the employer in relation to the employee.
Members are reminded that the Employment Tribunal decisions are case-specific and not indicative of the widespread poor practice of an employer. Also, the absence of an employer from the list of cases does not mean that that employer is better than any other, it simply indicates that there has been no case successfully brought against them to date.
1. BY CONSENT, having now heard the evidence today, the Respondent now admits that the Claimant was at the material time an employee for the purposes of her unfair dismissal claim pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 2. The application to amend the discrimination based claim so as to include additionally a claim of direct discrimination by way of associated disability and within the provisions of section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is granted.
Following a 5-day hearing earlier this year, an Employment Tribunal has upheld 7 allegations of harassment related to race occurring during a shift on 18 July 2020 in a claim issued against Boots and one of its pharmacy technicians. The Tribunal concluded that the treatment of the pharmacist by the pharmacy technician, a pharmacy advisor and the store manager was significantly influenced by (and therefore related to) the pharmacist’s race.
Following a 5-day hearing earlier this year, an Employment Tribunal has upheld 7 allegations of harassment related to race occurring during a shift on 18 July 2020 in a claim issued against Boots and one of its pharmacy technicians. The Tribunal concluded that the treatment of the pharmacist by the pharmacy technician, a pharmacy advisor and the store manager was significantly influenced by (and therefore related to) the pharmacist’s race.
Claims of harassment on grounds of disability in respect to an incident on 7 January 2020 were well-founded and succeeded.
Claims of unauthorised deduction of wages succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a sum.
Claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination were dismissed.
Claims of harassment on grounds of race succeeded and the claimant was awarded a sum for injury to feelings.
Barkerend Pharmacy Ltd was found to have been in breach of contract and was therefore ordered to pay to the claimant paid expenses in the sum of £2,744.82.
The claimant’s complaint is one of constructive unfair dismissal. It is the claimant’s case that the respondent was in fundamental breach of contract. The judge decided therefore that the Claimant should recover from the respondent a total of £2,748.
It was the unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal that the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was upheld. The Respondent discriminated against the Claimant contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010 (EQA) by issuing a PIP (performance improvement plan) on 30 September 2016.