Administrator awarded £1,250 for victimisation after threat of investigation
An administrator at a family-run electrical business was victimised when the company threatened to investigate her for reading emails, after she had resigned alleging constructive dismissal. The tribunal awarded her £1,250.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #victimisation
- #protected-act
- #grievance-outcome
- #investigation-meeting
- #family-business
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 20 May 2021 claiming constructive dismissal.
- The claimant accessed and read emails between the second respondent and Rhona Faulkner on 24 March 2021.
- The grievance outcome letter threatened an investigation into the email access.
- The claimant's protected act (resignation email) was a significant influence on the threat of investigation.
- The respondent failed to show the protected act had no influence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as an Administrator.
-
Furlough leave began
Claimant placed on furlough due to pandemic; received topped-up pay.
-
Second child born
Claimant gave birth to her second child.
-
Pay reduced to 80%
Claimant's pay reduced to 80% of normal pay.
-
Email about return to work
Claimant emailed second respondent about returning to work.
-
Phone call about hours
Second respondent told claimant hours would be reduced initially.
-
Meeting about return
Claimant and second respondent met but were at cross-purposes.
-
Emails read by claimant
Claimant accessed and read emails between second respondent and Rhona Faulkner.
-
Clarification email
Second respondent confirmed flexible furlough and eventual return to 28 hours.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, alleging constructive dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer victimised the administrator by threatening to investigate her for reading emails, because she had previously sent a resignation email alleging constructive dismissal (a protected act).
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the victimisation claim but dismissed all other claims, including constructive dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, and maternity pay.
- The claimant resigned on 20 May 2021, alleging constructive dismissal.
- On 9 June 2021, the employer wrote to her threatening an investigation into her reading of emails on 24 March 2021.
- The tribunal found that the protected act (resignation email) was a significant influence on the threat, and the employer did not prove it had no influence.
- Compensation: £1,250 for injury to feelings.
Lessons & takeaways
- A threat to investigate an employee after they have raised a grievance or resigned can amount to victimisation if it is linked to their protected act.
- Employers must be able to show that any detrimental action taken after a protected act is not influenced by that act.
- Even in small family businesses, employment rights apply and tribunals will scrutinise the reasons behind management decisions.
A family dispute leads to a victimisation finding
This case shows how quickly a family-run business can fall into legal trouble when personal relationships sour. The administrator, a family member, had worked for MW Electrical (Midlands) Limited since 2015. After returning from maternity leave, she became unhappy with changes to her hours and pay. She resigned in May 2021, alleging constructive dismissal.
What turned this into a successful claim was what happened next. The employer wrote to her threatening an investigation into her having read some emails back in March. The tribunal found that this threat was significantly influenced by her resignation email – which was a protected act. The employer could not prove that the threat would have been made anyway.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided liability by handling the email-reading issue separately and earlier, before any protected act occurred. By waiting until after the resignation to raise it, they created the impression that the threat was a response to the claimant's allegations. A clear policy on email access and a prompt, fair investigation at the time would have been a better approach.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that victimisation claims can succeed even when other claims fail. The administrator lost her constructive dismissal and discrimination claims, but still won on victimisation because the employer's actions were linked to her protected act. Employees who face threats or detriments after raising grievances or resigning should consider whether victimisation has occurred. For employers, any post-complaint action must be clearly justified and not retaliatory.
Similar cases
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
Former postal worker's job application rejected due to gross misconduct: victimisation claim fails
A former Royal Mail employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct claimed his application for a seasonal role was rejected because of his earlier discrimination complaints. The tribunal disagreed, finding the rejection was automatic and unrelated to any protected act.
Harassment and victimisation: employer forwarded discrimination complaint to the alleged harasser
A former employee has won her harassment and victimisation claims after her employer forwarded her emails alleging sex discrimination to the person she complained about, who then called her. She was later dismissed.
Production line worker loses victimisation claim over absence management after protected act
A production line worker with 12 years' service failed to prove that Jaguar Land Rover victimised him by managing his sickness absence after he brought a sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the employer's actions were not because of the protected act.