Tribunal rules woman not unlawfully discriminated against over beliefs

The tribunal panel, made up of Judge Sturgeon and panel member Michael McKeown, said when dealing with direct discrimination, it assessed whether or not BFF acted “because of [Morrison’s] political opinion or because of objectively identified issues arising within [Morrison’s] stakeholder-facing role”.

It concluded the acts Morrison had complained about arose from “operational requirements, stakeholder concerns, contractual obligations, payroll administration, organisational resources, grievance procedures, sickness absence or administrative errors”.

The judgment stated: “The tribunal therefore concludes that [Morrison’s] political opinion was not the reason, nor any part of the reason, for the treatment complained of.”

Regarding harassment, the tribunal said it accepted that “a number of the matters complained of arose in the context of [Morrison’s] publicly expressed political opinion and that criticism of the [Morrison’s] views was communicated by stakeholders on multiple occasions”.

The judgment went on: “The tribunal has therefore considered carefully whether [BFF’s] own conduct amounted to unwanted conduct on the ground of political opinion.”

It concluded that this was not the case.

It added: ” [BFF’s] actions consisted of investigating complaints, communicating with relevant stakeholders, addressing reputational concerns, administering contractual matters and operating grievance procedures.

“The tribunal does not find that these actions themselves amounted to hostility towards the claimant’s political opinion.”

The tribunal went on to say it was not satisfied that any of the conduct “had the purpose or effect of violating [Morrison’s] dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her”.

It also dismissed her claim of constructive dismissal.