Ward v Tipsy Brewing Company and others: [2024] TRE 41

The Claimant was employed by the First Respondent from 24^th October 2023 until January 2024. The Second and Third Respondents were also employed by the First Respondent during this period. On 27^th February 2024, the Claimant initiated a discrimination claim against all three Respondents, in addition to claims for automatic constructive unfair dismissal and for the late provision of pay statements and written terms of employment against the First Respondent.

The Respondents defended the discrimination and unfair dismissal claims, while the Third Respondent admitted to the late provision of the Claimant’s written statement of terms of employment and some pay statements. Additionally, the Claimant initially claimed unpaid wages against the First Respondent but withdrew this claim at the final hearing on 19 August 2024, leading to its dismissal upon withdrawal.

At the tribunal hearing, a file of documents was presented, confirmed by the parties as containing all relevant evidence. Notably, the Claimant did not provide a witness statement, believing it unnecessary. Case management orders required her to submit a written statement, but she failed to comply. Despite this, she orally confirmed that her claim form and further information reflected her own words and recollections, leading to an agreement that she could give oral evidence.

Prior to the hearing, she submitted witness statements from two individuals lacking direct knowledge of the case, which the tribunal disregarded. The Respondents provided four witnesses to present evidence and respond to inquiries.

To evaluate the discrimination claim, the tribunal had to establish whether the alleged conduct by the Respondents was discriminatory under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013. The Claimant’s claims included direct discrimination and harassment, alleging that the discrimination was based on her sex and sexual orientation. Specific allegations included:

1. 19 November Comment: A comment made by the Second Respondent.
2. 15 December Conduct: The Third Respondent’s alleged intimidating behaviour towards the Claimant.
3. 3 January Rumour: Allegations about the Respondents discussing the Claimant in a derogatory manner.
4. Childish Jokes: Questions regarding the Claimant’s sexual orientation.

The tribunal determined that the Claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims. The evidence was either too general, lacked clarity, or was unsupported by witness statements. The Claimant’s allegations of bullying were deemed insufficiently detailed and were disputed by the Respondents.

Upon evaluating the specific allegations, the tribunal concluded that:

• The 19 November Comment did not constitute harassment or direct discrimination.
• The 15 December Conduct was not found to be related to the Claimant’s sex or sexual orientation.
• The 3 January Rumour was determined not to have occurred as alleged.
• The Childish Jokes did not occur as claimed.

Overall, the tribunal found that the Claimant had not demonstrated that any of the allegations constituted direct discrimination or harassment under the Discrimination Law, leading to the dismissal of her discrimination claims.

Given that no discrimination was established, the tribunal found that the Claimant could not bring a claim for unfair dismissal due to the lack of required continuous service with the First Respondent.

The tribunal recognised that the First Respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements in a timely manner, violating Article 51 of the Employment Law. The tribunal exercised its discretion under Article 54, awarding the Claimant £304 for the late provision of pay statements, given that pay statements were provided late for approximately eight weeks.

Additionally, the First Respondent admitted to failing to provide a written statement of the Claimant’s terms of employment within the required four-week timeframe, breaching Article 3 of the Employment Law. The tribunal awarded £152 for this breach based on similar considerations.

The key takeaways from this case are:

1. Documentation Matters: Detailed witness statements and proper employment documentation are crucial for substantiating claims.
2. Be Specific: Clearly articulate claims of discrimination and provide specific comparisons to similarly situated colleagues to strengthen your case.
3. Understand Discrimination Laws: Familiarise yourself with discrimination definitions and the high threshold required to prove claims.
4. Realistic Expectations on Compensation: Compensation for administrative breaches may be limited, and constructive unfair dismissal claims require specific criteria to be met.
5. Employer Responsibilities: Employers must document their support efforts and improve compliance processes to avoid issues.
6. Value of Legal Counsel: Engaging legal professionals is essential for navigating complexities in employment law claims effectively.

Full Judgement Here