A woman, who brought her employer before an employment tribunal for not receiving a leave card, lost her case when it was revealed that the card was withheld because of a lack signatures.
Karen Conaghan who worked previously for IAG (parent company of British Airways) claimed that IAG’s failure to provide her with a leave card was a violation of the equality laws.
The tribunal was informed that a card was purchased but never given to her as only three people signed it. A former colleague told the Times that the managers felt it would be worse to deny her the card if it was sparsely filled out than to give it to her.
Kevin Palmer, Employment Judge, stated that it would be more insulting for him to have given her the card, than to not give her one at all. The tribunal heard also that two male co-workers, who were both made redundant during the same company restructuring, didn’t receive any leaving cards.
40 complaints
Conaghan is a former Business Liaison Lead who joined IAG in 2019. She filed 40 complaints accusing IAG of sexual harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal. The tribunal, however, dismissed all claims. Judge Palmer concluded that Conaghan developed a conspiracy-theory mindset and misinterpreted workplace interactions as harassment.
Conaghan complained about a colleague who changed the spelling of “whiz” to “whizz” on a business card. Another incident involved a coworker saying, “Are You Taking the Piss, Karen?” when she said she had done the majority of work on a particular project, and that it was now his turn to contribute.
Conaghan was informed by the tribunal that she moved to Richmond in North Yorkshire in September 2021. This is despite IAG’s expectation that all employees would live within two hours from its Heathrow office. Later that year, she was laid off during a restructuring process at the company which affected many other employees.
A former colleague testified, that while additional signatures for the leaving card were collected after Conaghan left, it was deemed “inappropriate to send the card” as Conaghan filed a complaint against him and another employee.
Judge Palmer found that Conaghan was right to claim that “normal workplace interactions are more sinister” than they actually were.
This ruling comes after a separate employment tribunal case that was decided earlier this year, in which a judge determined that sending an unwanted birthday card to an employee could be considered harassment.
