In the case of Mrs H Barclay v Asda Stores Limited the claimant commenced employment as a Bakery Assistant in May 1998. In 2020, LM became the claimant’s supervisor. Prior to that point, the claimant had had no issues in relation to her employment and enjoyed her job.

The claimant and LM did not have a good working relationship. The claimant felt that LM spoke down to her and treated her differently to everyone else. She raised this with LM and DM, LM’s line manager, on numerous occasions but there was no improvement. In April 2021, the claimant commenced a period of sickness absence, due to stress at work.

Following her return to work the claimant and LM participated in mediation to try to resolve the relationship issues. The claimant requested that LM treat her more sympathetically and speak to her in a more professional manner and tone. LM stated that she felt that she could not ask the claimant to do tasks, as she may not react well to that. It was agreed that they would try to work together civilly and that there would be weekly check-ins to see how the relationship was building.

The claimant did not feel that LM’s attitude towards her changed following the mediation. While DM asked her, in passing and when on the shop floor, whether she was OK, there was no formal follow up in relation to the mediation, which the claimant had understood would be done on a weekly basis, following the mediation.

On 7 November 2021, the claimant sent a letter to AM, raising a grievance. She stated that she had been harassed and treated unfairly in the bakery since November 2020 and mediation had not resolved the situation. She stated that the outcome she was seeking was disciplinary action against LM.

The claimant commenced a period of absence due to work related stress from 9 November 2021. She attended occupational health on 3 December 2021. The report noted that the claimant loved her role in the bakery and felt it would be unfair if she were required to move from that role due to the situation with her colleague.

The claimant returned to work on 21 December 2021 and her grievance hearing took place that day. She stated that she felt like she was being forced out and that, if LM was not moved from the bakery, she could not work there. It was proposed that the claimant work in self-scan for a 3-week period, while the grievance was investigated. The claimant indicated that she would do so, feeling that she had little option but to agree.

She began working in the self-scan department on 23 December and was told that if she was “feeling overwhelmed” that she could take a “timeout” in the back-office area.

On 7 January 2022, Barclay was told her grievance was upheld.

Employment judge Sangster accepted Barclay’s assertion that “insufficient action” was taken in relation to her complaints about LM’s conduct. Despite the grievance ruling that LM did harass Barclay, Sangster said she was “not sufficiently supported by management during and after the grievance process; she was simply moved to a different department, contrary to her clear, and repeatedly expressed, wishes”.

Sangster also said that “no consideration was given to [Barclay] returning to work in the department she had worked in for 24 years, despite the fact that her complaint was upheld, and LM’s actions were found to have been inappropriate”.

The tribunal also said the OH reports noted that Barclay did not feel supported by management and that her “symptoms of anxiety and depression were related to occupational stressors”, but that Asda took “no action in relation to these red flags”.

Barclay was awarded £8,962.30 for unfair dismissal.