Bakery operative's harassment and discrimination claims dismissed after tribunal finds evidence unreliable
A tribunal dismissed all claims of sexual and racial harassment, sex and race discrimination, and unlawful deduction of wages brought by a bakery operative against Greenhalgh’s Craft Bakery Limited, finding the claimant's evidence unreliable and preferring the respondent's witnesses supported by CCTV footage.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a bakery operative from 22 January 2018 until her dismissal on 27 June 2018.
- The claimant alleged sexual harassment by multiple colleagues, including Michael Smart, Eva Falusi, David Leigh, and Martin Almond.
- The claimant alleged that Michael Smart used the phrase 'Paki shop' in her presence, which she claimed was racial harassment.
- The claimant claimed she was underpaid for hours worked, asserting the clocking system was inaccurate.
- The tribunal found the claimant's evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's witnesses, supported by CCTV footage.
- The tribunal struck out the whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim due to lack of evidence on causation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a bakery operative at Greenhalgh’s Craft Bakery.
-
Eva Falusi incident
Eva Falusi accused the claimant of wanting to have sex with her brother and made a sexual gesture.
-
David Leigh clingfilm incident
David Leigh wafted clingfilm towards the claimant's back; claimant called police alleging a pinch on the bottom.
-
Martin Almond incident
Martin Almond allegedly asked claimant why she was causing problems and said she was 'doing sex perception' to a colleague.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed during her probationary period, citing multiple written complaints.
-
Further particulars filed
Claimant submitted further particulars including new allegations of harassment.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Franey heard applications to amend and strike out claims; struck out whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim.
-
Judgment sent to parties
Judgment on preliminary issues sent to parties.
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration of the strike-out decision.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Franey refused the reconsideration application.
-
Final hearing starts
Full merits hearing began before Employment Judge Warren and members.
-
Final hearing ends
Final hearing concluded after multiple days.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no harassment, discrimination, or unlawful deductions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to sexual harassment, sex discrimination, race harassment, race discrimination, and unlawful deduction from wages, and whether her dismissal was automatically unfair due to protected disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the bakery operative against Greenhalgh’s Craft Bakery Limited. The key reason was that the tribunal found the claimant's evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's witnesses, whose accounts were supported by CCTV footage. No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- CCTV evidence can be crucial in corroborating or refuting allegations of workplace harassment.
- Tribunals assess credibility carefully; inconsistent or unreliable witness evidence can undermine a claim.
- Whistleblowing claims require clear evidence of a protected disclosure and a causal link to the dismissal.
- Representing yourself in tribunal can be challenging; legal advice may improve the presentation of evidence.
This case illustrates the importance of credible evidence in employment tribunal claims. The claimant, a bakery operative, alleged a series of incidents involving sexual and racial harassment by colleagues, including inappropriate comments and physical contact. She also claimed she was underpaid and that her dismissal was automatically unfair because she had made protected disclosures.
However, the tribunal found the claimant's account of events to be unreliable. Crucially, the respondent provided CCTV footage that contradicted key aspects of her allegations. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, who were consistent and supported by the footage. This led to the dismissal of all claims, including those for harassment, discrimination, and unlawful deduction of wages.
The case highlights the difficulty of succeeding in discrimination and harassment claims without strong supporting evidence. The tribunal noted that the claimant's own evidence was inconsistent and that she had made allegations that were not borne out by the available evidence. For employers, the case demonstrates the value of maintaining accurate records and using technology like CCTV to defend against unfounded claims. For employees, it underscores the need to gather and preserve evidence to support allegations of misconduct.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Senior HR manager's constructive dismissal claim dismissed: resignation was for better job
A senior HR manager who resigned after accepting a higher-paid job failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal or discrimination. The Birmingham tribunal found no breach of contract by National Highways Ltd.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.