- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Wojcik v Moy Park Limited
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff raised a grievance in writing with the Defendant concerning sexual harassment related to a spot check conducted on 17 July 2010 but did not raise a grievance regarding racial harassment. The Plaintiff submitted a claim form to the tribunal on 15 October 2010, which included multiple attachments spanning from 18 July 2010 to 6 October 2010. The grievance, dated 28 July 2010 and prepared with assistance from a Trade Union Representative, described an incident of unwanted harassment by a Technical Manager during the spot check. The tribunal considered the chronology of events including the spot check, investigation meeting, disciplinary meetings, grievance meetings, and appeals. The tribunal was assisted by evidence from the Plaintiff, a chronology from the Defendant, and documentation from the Plaintiff. The Defendant was represented by legal counsel, and the Plaintiff was assisted by an interpreter.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff lodged a written grievance with the Defendant regarding a complaint of racial harassment related to disciplinary and grievance hearings and their outcomes.
- If such a grievance was lodged, whether the Plaintiff's claim should be amended to include racial harassment claims related to those proceedings.
- Whether the Plaintiff lodged a written grievance with the Defendant regarding a complaint of sexual harassment in relation to the spot check on 17 July 2010.
- If so, whether the claim should be amended to include a claim of sexual harassment related to the spot check.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Canary Wharf Management Ltd v Edebi [2006] IRLR 416, [2006] ICR 719, EAT | Clarification of statutory grievance procedure requirements under para 6 of Sch 2 of the Employment Act 2004; minimal formality required; grievance must be extant and identify the complaint fairly. | Applied to determine whether the Plaintiff's grievance letter constituted a valid written grievance for sexual harassment, concluding it did. |
| Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre [2006] IRLR 76, [2006] ICR 304, EAT | Minimal content required for a grievance statement; no need for technical or formal language. | Supported the conclusion that the Plaintiff's grievance met the minimal statutory requirements. |
| Galaxy Showers Ltd v Wilson [2006] IRLR 83 | Definition of grievance includes failure to act; no maximum time limit for raising grievance but grievance must be extant. | Used to assess the timing and content of the Plaintiff's grievance submissions. |
| Mark Warner Ltd v Aspland [2006] IRLR 87, EAT | Grievance may be raised through solicitors' correspondence; no special formality required. | Supported the tribunal's flexible approach to the form of the Plaintiff's grievance. |
| Thorpe v Poat and Lake [2006] All ER (D) 30 (Jan), EAT | Grievance can be raised even after dismissal takes effect. | Referenced regarding timing and formality considerations. |
| Cannop v Highland Council [2008] CSIH 38, [2008] IRLR 634 | Correlation between grievance statement and tribunal claim should not be approached technically; grievance and claim have different functions. | Applied to interpret the Plaintiff's grievance in its wider context, including earlier communications. |
| Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836 | Considerations for allowing amendments to tribunal claims, especially regarding time limits and causative links. | Used to assess whether the Plaintiff's amendment to include sexual harassment was permissible. |
| Housing Corpn v Bryant [1999] ICR 123, CA | Requirement of a causative link between original claim and amendment; absence can defeat amendment. | Referenced to determine the connection between the original claim and proposed amendments. |
| Harvey v Port of Tilbury (London) Ltd (1999) IRLR 693, [1999] ICR 1030, EAT | Amendment adding a new cause of action unconnected with original claim may be disallowed if no causative link exists. | Applied in assessing the permissibility of the Plaintiff's amendment to add sexual harassment claim. |
| Lehman Brothers Ltd v Smith (EAT/486/05, 13 October 2005) | Tribunal discretion to allow amendments introducing new claims out of time based on hardship/injustice rather than statutory criteria. | Supported the tribunal's discretion in permitting the amendment to include sexual harassment. |
| Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd (EAT/92/07, 6 June 2007) | Application of hardship/injustice test over statutory tests for extending time to amend claims. | Supported tribunal's approach to allow amendment despite timing considerations. |
| British Newspaper Printing Corpn (North) Ltd v Kelly [1989] IRLR 222, CA | Endorsement of hardship/injustice test for amendments. | Referenced in support of the tribunal's discretion to allow amendments. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The tribunal carefully examined the evidence and relevant documentation, including the Plaintiff's written grievance dated 28 July 2010 and related notes from an investigatory meeting. Applying established legal principles from authoritative precedents, the tribunal assessed whether the Plaintiff had satisfied the statutory requirement to raise a grievance in writing. The tribunal found that the grievance concerning sexual harassment was valid and extant, meeting the minimal formal requirements and sufficiently identifying the complaint. The tribunal also considered the nature of amendments to claims, distinguishing between amendments that alter the basis of an existing claim and those that introduce entirely new claims. It concluded that adding the sexual harassment claim constituted an amendment linked to the original facts and was thus permissible. Conversely, no written grievance had been raised regarding racial harassment; therefore, no amendment to include racial harassment claims was allowed.
Holding and Implications
The tribunal granted leave to amend the claim form to include a complaint of sexual harassment related to the spot check on 17 July 2010. The tribunal held that the Plaintiff had not raised a written grievance concerning racial harassment, so no amendment was permitted on that ground. The decision directly affects the scope of the Plaintiff's claim by allowing the inclusion of sexual harassment allegations but excludes racial harassment claims due to lack of a prior grievance. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applied existing principles concerning grievance procedures and amendments to claims.
Alert