Mr and Mrs Patel (the claimants) were employed by a convenience store in Nottingham. When it was sold, their employment automatically transferred to the new owner (the respondent) under the TUPE regulations.

Soon after the transfer took place, Mr Patel was told that he was being dismissed for theft and that the husband and wife must be treated as a “package,” which meant that his wife, Mrs Patel, would also no longer be employed. The respondent behaved aggressively towards Mr Patel. The tribunal accepted that Mr Patel had not stolen anything but more importantly the respondents treatment towards them was not because of the alleged theft but because he was married and that his wife also worked with him at the same store. The respondent stated that it was “illegal to have a husband and wife team.” No investigation or disciplinary proceedings were instigated by the respondent for the alleged theft.

When the claimants raised a formal grievance, they received a reply from the respondent which said “sue me.” They then requested an appeal to be held by the respondent but unsurprisingly, no appeal was allowed to take place.

The tribunal accepted that the claimants (particularly Mr Patel) had been subjected to harassing and threatening behaviour from the respondent on about six occasions between 25 August to 10 September 2020 by accusing him of theft and threatening to come to his home.

The loss of a long-standing position had a significant impact on Mr Patel’s mental health, leading to sleepless nights and anxiety which spiralled into depression. He was now having to work more than 50 hours a week as a warehouse operative which was a big step down from his previous managerial role.

When deciding the injury to feelings award for Mr Patel, the judge assessed the level of hurt and humiliation suffered by him as well as the aggravating factors based on the prejudice towards his marital status. Factoring this in, he was awarded £17,500 for injury to feelings which falls under the middle Vento band.

The injury to feelings element varied slightly with Mrs Patel as it was determined that she was not subject to the same aggressive behaviour from the respondent including any physical aggression, the accusation of theft or repeated phone calls at home. Despite this, the judge accepted that the impact on her had also been considerable and an award of £15,500 was made in respect of her injury to feelings.

Tribunal awards can be uplifted by up to 25% for failure to comply with the ACAS code. In this case, the argument for successfully made due to the deliberate failure to comply with the disciplinary and grievance procedures – and therefore, the compensatory award was uplifted by 22.5% with the nominal reduction being made to reflect the size of the respondent’s business.

We always strive for the best possible result for our clients and this is an example of exactly that!

The full judgment can be found here.

If you have been mistreated in the workplace or require specific advice around any employment issues you have, you can contact us directly at [email protected] for a free confidential chat.

For advice or for a free assessment contact us today