Background:

The claimant was employed as a full-time Support Worker in the respondent’s job club.  When initially employed, she was subject to the probation policy which applied for six months and could be extended for a further three months.  At the beginning of her employment in October 2019, the claimant was unwell and took two unpaid sick days and two days holiday leave. On her return-to-work meeting, her line manager informed her that further sick absence could affect her probation.  The claimant was asked if there were any underlying health concerns the respondent should be aware of, but she did not disclose any.

There were concerns about the claimant’s interactions with other staff.  This arose in 2020 when there was a heated argument between the claimant and the respondent’s caretaker. The claimant’s line manager stated she could raise a formal grievance, but it would be better if the matter could be resolved informally between them.   The claimant also raised a safeguarding concern about having to work alone in the afternoon without supervision.  This was in relation to a fatal stabbing that had occurred recently in the area.  Indeed, the respondent’s male receptionist had a bullet proof screen. The line manager did question this but appreciated the concern about working alone and arranged for mentors to be in the job club office in the afternoon. At a performance review in January 2020 the line manager stated the claimant did not appear to be a good fit, had a negative outlook and was complaining quite a lot.  The claimant considered this was an offer to pay her notice to voluntarily leave yet this was not the case, and she was informed that she had to decide by the end of her six-month probation period whether the job was for her or not.

An issue arose when the line manager stated there was a ‘rape alarm’ which the claimant may want to use. This was provided for the claimant and another employee who may need to use it should there be a risk when they were working alone.   The Tribunal found the language archaic stating that a ‘personal protection alarm’ may have been better.  The Tribunal found that there was no intention to humiliate or demean the claimant by using the term.

The issues between the claimant and other staff, including her line manager, persisted throughout her period of employment and through periods of working from home because of the pandemic.   This culminated in a grievance with 26 separate concerns raised by the claimant which were dismissed.  The claimant brought a claim in February 2022 and her employment ended in 2022.

Outcome:

The first issue for the Tribunal to deal with was time.  The claimant argued there was an ongoing discriminatory state of affairs such that the claim was presented within the three months as required.  The Tribunal did not accept this as the allegations of discriminatory behaviour largely took place in 2019-2020.  The Tribunal did note the claimant initially submitted her claim to the wrong Tribunal but did not consider there was merit in her claims of disability discrimination and sex discrimination, and it would not be persuaded on balance to extend time.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case is yet another one which relates to the time limits when it comes to presenting a claim to the Tribunal.  Interestingly, this was a substantive heading with all of the particular issues relating to the discrimination claims being considered both factually and legally.  The Tribunal has considered the substance of the claim in relation to whether the time limits should be extended.  This method may be problematic in trying to deal with time limit issues, and jurisdiction issues, as a matter of a preliminary hearing rather than being rolled up in a full substantive hearing.