The unfair and constructive dismissal of a female finance director from a film special effects firm amounted to sex and race discrimination, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Mrs Edwins argued that she was forced out of the “male-dominated” Artem, which has produced props and special effects for films and TV shows including Hot Fuzz, Ex Machina and The Graham Norton Show.
She claimed that it was also the perception of chairman Mr Kelt that the industry is male-dominated, and this affected the way he treated her and valued her contributions to the business.
Constructive dismissal cases
Covid-resignation driving examiner to have tribunal claim reheard
Ex-employee wins harassment claim over Pontius Pilate comment
Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k payout
Kelt was claimed to have called another female employee an “old nag”. Edwins told the tribunal that this sort of language about female employees was quite common and that “none of us thought too much of it as it was the accepted culture; so nothing further came of it”.
Edwins raised a grievance about the old nag comment, among other things. The individual investigating her grievance did not speak to the Kelt or the colleague on the receiving end of the comment. Artem found her grievance to be “unsubstantiated”, yet Kelt admitted to making the comment at the tribunal hearing.
One witness recalled Kelt saying that he wanted a “pretty young lady” working on reception, while he was also alleged to have told somebody not to get their “knickers in a twist”.
In 2020, Artem wanted to conduct a finance review. A meeting to discuss the review was arranged but went on to discuss concerns with Edwins’ performance. Kelt said the working relationship with Edwins was not currently effective and her attitude and communication had to improve, but Edwins did not accept there were issues. Kelt implied he had concerns with the claimant’s performance and said he had lost confidence in her.
Edwins resigned from Artem following the meeting, alleging that she had been “bullied and belittled”.
The tribunal found that there was no reasonable and proper cause for Kelt to say he had lost confidence in the claimant.
The judgment said: “The comment about having lost confidence in the claimant was based on an opinion Mr Kelt had before the meeting, not one he arrived at during the meeting. He told the claimant that it was (in part) because of a ‘few things dramatically wrong’ and said this without the claimant ever having had the safeguards of any performance management process, allowing her to know the specific alleged performance concerns, and the evidence, and the opportunity to give a considered response.
“The statement was not deliberately calculated to destroy the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee, but it was likely to have that effect, and it did so. As a result of what was said to her in the meeting, and as a result of this comment in particular, the claimant believed that there was no way back for her. She believed that she could not continue as an employee.”
It found that the statement amounted to a breach of contract by Artem. As she was given no advance warning of the meeting or any indication that it would discuss concerns about her performance, the tribunal found that there was constructive dismissal and that it was unfair.
The tribunal panel found the company could not prove the comments that led to her dismissal had not been motivated by sex or race and therefore amounted to direct sex and race discrimination.
The judgment said: “The reason that the burden of proof shifts for sex is that the workforce was more than 80% male. Mr Kelt had had this drawn to his attention, and said he would consider it. He had failed to take any action… These are facts which show that Mr Kelt’s actions potentially could be motivated by the sex of the person he was talking to, or talking about and from which the tribunal could conclude that his words and actions on 12 August 2020 were, at least partially, and at least unconsciously, influenced by the claimant’s sex.
“The reason that the burden of proof shifts for race is that the workforce was predominantly white. During the first few weeks of the Covid lockdown, all the white employees (not counting the directors) were not working and were receiving 80% of pay. One employee, SB, was required to work and received 80% of pay. That is a fact which could indicate that the respondent [was] capable of treating employees differently where there was a difference in race.”
As well as constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that Edwins was also entitled to compensation for breach of contract, as Artem did not give a notice period or pay in lieu of notice. A hearing to decide compensation will be scheduled for a later date.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
