An NHS employee sued the well being service after he was punched by a feminine colleague after which advised to ‘man-up’.
Mark Woods mentioned he didn’t really feel ‘protected or comfy’ working with the lady following the incident.
However after making a proper criticism he was advised by bosses that the blows have been ‘not malicious’ or accomplished with ‘sturdy drive’, an employment tribunal heard.
When he advised HR he did not wish to work with the colleague once more he was advised to ‘man-up and return to his position’.
Mr Woods had his criticism thrown out by Decide Liz Ord after lacking the three month deadline to report circumstances to an employment tribunal
After leaving the position, he took his case to an employment tribunal claiming intercourse discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Nonetheless, his claims have been thrown out as a result of he had taken too lengthy to carry them.
The preliminary listening to, held in Manchester, was advised Mr Woods labored for NHS Property Companies Ltd from November 2018 till his dismissal in June 2021.
In January 2020, Mr Woods’ raised a grievance about an unnamed feminine colleague ‘punching him thrice’ the day earlier than, the panel heard.
His criticism was ‘partially upheld’ in that it was accepted he had been punched.
Nonetheless, the investigation concluded the blows have been ‘not malicious in intent’ and acknowledged there was ‘inadequate proof to show sturdy drive was used’.
Regardless of an apology from the lady and ‘mediation’ between the 2, Mr Woods took three months’ sick depart as a result of ‘stress at work’ – by which time his attraction towards the findings was additionally rejected.
The preliminary listening to, held in Manchester, was advised Mr Woods labored for NHS Property Companies Ltd, an organization that manages NHS estates
Upon returning to work in April 2020, Mr Woods requested to be ‘re-deployed’ as a result of ‘not feeling comfy or protected’ working with the feminine colleague.
Nonetheless, when he complained to a HR Enterprise Associate, Mr Woods’ was advised to ‘man-up and return to his position’.
Mr Woods was finally supplied ‘re-deployment’, which he accepted, in June 2020 however was advised in March 2021 his contract could be terminated on the finish of the month.
The panel heard Mr Woods made one other formal grievance as he had been was ‘led to consider his new position was everlasting’ – but it surely was not upheld.
Mr Woods’ contract expiry date was prolonged till the top of June 2021, however he was on sick depart throughout that interval till his eventual dismissal.
The tribunal heard he ought to have made his intercourse discrimination declare inside three months of the incident.
Employment Decide Liz Ord mentioned: ‘This declare was introduced about 13 months out of time. These are important delays.’
Decide Ord reasoned that regardless of Mr Woods’ three month illness depart, he had been ‘properly sufficient’ to lodge a grievance attraction throughout this era.
‘It seems that Mr Woods had no intention of bringing a discrimination declare till his dismissal, which acted as a catalyst for motion. This was a calculated alternative that he made.’
The decide dominated it was not ‘simply and equitable’ to increase the three month deadline to take authorized motion at an employment tribunal and subsequently Mr Woods’s declare was dismissed.