In the case of Ms JT v Par Market Ltd Ms JT was employed as a cleaning operative at Par Market – one of the UK’s largest indoor markets in St Austell, Cornwall.
During an employment tribunal hearing, in which Ms JT represented herself, it was claimed her colleague Mr AT had taken offence that as a ‘mature woman’ she did her job ‘properly’ and in response, he ‘deliberately splattered/ soiled the toilets’.
Ms JT said she was continuously tasked with scrubbing ‘sh**-filled toilets’ and she resigned in disgust after three weeks.
Although she attempted to sue the market for sex discrimination and harassment, her case was dismissed after the tribunal ruled that she had no evidence that Mr AT was responsible.
Dismissing her case, Employment Judge Ann Goraj said: ‘The Tribunal is not satisfied that Ms JT has established the factual basis of her case namely, that Mr AT took excrement into /deliberately spread excrement/ soiled the respondent’s toilet.’
The hearing in Exeter, Devon, heard there are two sets of toilets at the market which receive a ‘high level of use throughout the day’ so cleaners are required to check them regularly.
During the short course of Ms JT’s employment at the market, she raised several complaints about the cleanliness and hygiene issues on the site and highlighted an ‘alleged failure’ of male colleagues to clean them as required.
On one shift, Ms JT was horrified to find an ‘explosion of excrement’ in the site’s disabled toilet and blamed colleague Mr AT for leaving the mess.
For the following few shifts, the cleaner continued to find soiled toilets and baby-changing units and raised concerns with her boss.
She told him she had worked in pubs, clubs, campsites and restaurants but had never encountered so many ‘disgusting’ and ‘messy’ toilets as she had at the market.
During one shift, Ms JT watched her colleague head to the toilets and emerge ten minutes later, telling her he had just checked the toilet and they were fine.
The cleaner went in afterwards and was horrified to find what she described as a toilet splattered with ‘sloppy poo’ and complained again about Mr AT.
On June 22, Ms JT sent a ‘highly emotive text’ to her boss saying she was constantly coming across ‘s***-filled toilets with no tissue’ which she also blamed on Mr Trethewey.
She told bosses she felt ‘threatened’ and ‘anxious’ and would no longer be able to work at the market. Mr Trethewey ‘vigorously denied’ the allegations.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
