Serial Complainant was victimised

In the case of Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Limited, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that a former employee who was a serial complainant was victimised.

In the case of Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Limited, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that a former employee who was a serial complainant was victimised.  Victimisation is where a person treats another person unfavourably because they know or suspect that the employee has done or intends to do a protected act, which includes bringing discrimination proceedings and making allegations of unlawful discrimination.

Mr Woodhouse raised 10 grievances against his employer over the course of five years, all of which were ultimately rejected.  He also made nine complaints to the Employment Tribunal, including a number related to discrimination and an unfair dismissal claim.  The Tribunal hearing itself was substantial, lasting for 15 days with 25 witnesses and 4,000 pages of documents.

The employer dismissed Mr Woodhouse on the grounds that the relationship between them had irretrievably broken down (given the extent and manner of the grievances) and that there was no longer any trust and confidence between them.

The Employment Tribunal rejected Mr Woodhouse’s claims for race discrimination, harassment and victimisation.  Mr Woodhouse was successful in his claim for unfair dismissal, but his compensation was reduced by 90% on the grounds that, although the employer had failed to give him an opportunity to mend his ways, in reality this was likely to have made little difference to the ultimate outcome (being his dismissal). 

Mr Woodhouse appealed the Tribunal’s decision to reject the victimisation claim and to make a reduction to the compensation in relation to his unfair dismissal claim.

The EAT upheld the appeals and in particular-

• The EAT found that the dismissal and the protected acts were not separable.  The Employment Tribunal had made the mistake of undertaking a comparative exercise, ie comparing the way in which the employer treated Mr Woodhouse with the way in which it would have treated another employee who had made a number of grievances.  The EAT found that this was the wrong approach and the Tribunal should simply have asked itself whether Mr Woodhouse’s conduct paid any significant part in the decision taken to dismiss him.
• Simply because a raft of grievances are made does not mean that there can be no victimisation.
• Because Mr Woodhouse had been victimised by his dismissal, the Tribunal should not have made a reduction to his compensation.

Employers should therefore be cautious in dealing with employees who make a series of complaints or grievances, particularly if the grievances or complaints allege discrimination.  Although employers may feel justified in taking a hard line with an employee who disrupts the business by making groundless complaints, this case shows that such a reaction by the employer may well amount to a successful claim of victimisation.