Karen Conaghan v IAG GBS Limited

Ms K Conaghan v IAG GBS Ltd Case Number: 3305907/2022

Facts

The Claimant, Karen Conaghan, was employed by the Respondent as a business liaison lead (BLL) from August 2019 until her dismissal due to redundancy on December 31, 2021. The role of a BLL involved checking and resolving IT issues, triaging high-priority issues (P1-P4), and managing communications related to IT incidents. BLLs also undertook projects to improve IT service. In September 2021, the BLL role was proposed for removal as part of a restructuring exercise where IT service operations were outsourced to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). BLLs had the option to apply for new roles or opt for redundancy.

The Claimant brought claims for sexual harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, victimisation under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, and unfair dismissal. Key allegations related to her claims included:

Sexual Harassment

Various acts occurring in 2021, primarily involving Ravinder Neta, Shahid Aziz, and Geoffrey Collins. These included being forced onto an on-call roster, forced to do a project, extended calls, receiving a text about her miscarriage, being belittled, having spelling corrected, being excluded from a group chat, being accused of lying about her move to Yorkshire, being forced to work long hours alone, and pressured to cancel leave or have a return-to-work meeting. Mr. Aziz was also alleged to have not provided a leaving card.

Victimisation

Two alleged protected acts. The first was reporting alleged sexual harassment by Mr. Neta and Mr. Aziz to James Spender in December 2019. The second was disclosing information about alleged harassment to her Trade Union Representative, Christopher McNulty, in December 2021, which Mr. McNulty then shared with Julia Giles. The alleged detriments for victimisation largely mirrored the harassment allegations, with an additional key detriment being the revocation of an offer for an "IAG GBS People Obs Advisor" role due to her inability to travel to London two days a week.

Unfair Dismissal

While it was agreed the reason for dismissal was redundancy, the issue was the fairness of that dismissal, specifically concerning the Respondent's steps to find the Claimant suitable alternative employment. The Claimant contended that an offer for the People Obs Advisor role in Newcastle was revoked.

The case was heard over five days in June 2024 by Cloud Video Platform (CVP), which the Tribunal found undesirable for a case of this length with a bundle of 1561 pages and eight witnesses. The Tribunal heard evidence from eight witnesses.

Held

The Tribunal's unanimous judgment was that all of the Claimant's claims failed and were dismissed.

Sexual Harassment

The claims for sexual harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The Tribunal made factual findings that many of the alleged acts did not occur. For the acts that did occur (e.g., Mr. Aziz's text about miscarriage, Mr. Collins' "taking the piss" comment, Mr. Neta's spelling correction, Mr. Neta denying permanent Yorkshire work, Mr. Neta making her give her address, Mr. Neta pressuring about leave and return to work meetings, Mr. Aziz not providing a leaving card), the Tribunal found no evidence to suggest they were in any way related to the Claimant's sex. The Tribunal noted that some interactions, though unprofessional, were part of an uneasy working relationship and not sex-related.

Victimisation: The claims for victimisation under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.

First Protected Act (December 2019 report to Mr. Spender)

This was considered a protected act. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to connect the alleged detriments (occurring in 2021) with this protected act. It was deemed highly unlikely that Mr. Neta and Mr. Aziz would wait 18 months or two years to subject the Claimant to detriments . Many alleged detriments either did not happen or were "innocuous interactions".

Second Protected Act (December 2021 disclosure to Trade Union Representative)

The Tribunal concluded that this could not constitute a protected act as it was "vague and unparticularised" and "not sufficiently identified".

Revoked Job Offer (15.18)

The Tribunal specifically found that no offer for the IAG GBS People Obs Advisor role was ever made and then revoked. The Claimant was not offered the role because she stated she could not attend the London office twice a week as required for the London-based position. The mention of Newcastle in a later external advertisement was found to be an error.

Unfair Dismissal

The claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the dismissal was due to redundancy. The only issue was whether the Respondent acted reasonably in trying to find suitable alternative employment. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had an "elaborate process" for at-risk employees to apply for alternative roles, which was "followed precisely". The Claimant applied for five roles through two preferential rounds and was unsuccessful, with no evidence suggesting these processes were unfairly conducted. Regarding the People Obs Advisor role, the Tribunal reiterated that the Claimant was not offered it because she could not meet the London-based attendance requirement, and no offer was revoked. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent "discharged their duty to take reasonable steps to find the Claimant alternative employment" and the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Comment

The Tribunal provided significant insight into its process and findings. It noted the challenges of a long case heard via CVP. A key aspect of the Tribunal's approach was the sifting and weighing of evidence, particularly where witness accounts conflicted. The Tribunal explicitly stated that preferring one party's evidence did not mean the other was lying, but rather an assessment based on the balance of probabilities (51% likelihood).

A recurring theme in the Tribunal's factual findings was the Claimant's "misinterpretation of events" and her exhibition of a "conspiracy theory mentality" regarding normal workplace interactions, often seeing "sinister or ulterior motifs" where the Tribunal found none. For example, the text message from Mr. Aziz after her miscarriage was seen as "entirely appropriate and compassionate" by the Tribunal, despite the Claimant's view that it amounted to harassment. In terms of legal application what the IAG Employment Tribunal Karen Conaghan tells us is:

Harassment

The Tribunal emphasized that unwanted conduct must be related to the protected characteristic (sex), which is a factual determination for the Tribunal. The reason for the unwanted conduct is "highly relevant". The Tribunal found no such relation to sex for any of the alleged acts that occurred. The Tribunal also considered the "effect" test, noting that the objective test aims to exclude liability for "hypersensitive and unreasonably takes offence".

Victimisation

A crucial legal point was the requirement that the alleged victimiser must have knowledge of the protected act, and not just any complaint, but that it was an allegation of discrimination or a contravention of legislation. The Tribunal found no evidence of a connection between the protected act and the alleged detriments.

Unfair Dismissal

The Tribunal applied the "band of reasonable responses" test under Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employer's duty regarding alternative employment is to take "reasonable steps," not "every conceivable step possible". The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent met this duty.