Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd & Anor v Heads

The Industrial Tribunal's Decision was entered in the Register on July 21 1992. On August 20 1992 Brown and the employers appealed; and by a cross appeal, the employee appealed against the rejection of her complaint of unfair dismissal.

The brief facts relevant to this judgment are as follows. The employee was employed by her employers since March 24 1986, as an Area supervisor, responsible for supervising contracts which the employers had obtained for the cleaning of leisure and commercial premises. At the relevant time she was 43 years of age, with three sons, one of whom was approximately the same age as Brown. The employers are a relatively large company engaged in the contract cleaning business with 1200 staff of whom 300 are full time and 800 are women. Brown is the son of two of the employers' four directors.

Because Brown disputed what was said, the employers thought it would be fair to ask the employee to invoke the grievance procedure. Not surprisingly she did not want to do this but preferred that Brown should be spoken to informally and warned as to his future behaviour. The parties fell out over this and on April 17 1991 Mrs Head tendered her resignation, which was accepted.

"...Brown was a poor witness who did not treat either the hearing or the allegation against him with the seriousness which we would have expected had he not made the remark." paragraph 6

The Industrial tribunal left over the question of remedy and, as the parties were unable to come to terms, the matter came before the same Tribunal who assessed compensation. By a Decision entered in the Register on December 5 1992, which is not the subject of an appeal by either party, the Industrial Tribunal awarded the employee �750 for injury to her feelings, the only head of damage claimed, apart from aggravated damages which was rejected in principle. In reaching their Decision the Tribunal said that