A Barratt homes boss has been awarded thousands for victimisation after she missed out on a new job because of a ‘revenge’ reference.
An employment tribunal was told the women had previously received a financial settlement from the firm in a case involving sexual harassment.
After resigning from her job she was given a verbal reference from her manager which resulted in a new job offer with another firm being withdrawn.
Stuart Dodson, development director for West Scotland, was also the subject of a further grievance relating to the handling of the woman’s harassment claim.
The claimant, named as Ms N A Righetti in the tribunal papers, had worked for BDW Trading Ltd from January 2017 until her resignation in March 2020.
She was originally employed as planning manager and was promoted to the role of land manager a year later.
READ MORE: Edinburgh organic food firm failed to recognise chronic condition now a disability
In 2019 she lodged a tribunal case against the firm following a grievance against Mr Stuart Dodson and Caroline Collins, HR director, regarding the way that her complaint of sexual harassment had been dealt with.
The claim was withdrawn following a financial settlement which included clauses that the firm must not make any adverse or derogatory comments about her and would provide references for future employment.
A year after leaving the job a recruitment consultant, Elisha Johnson, got in touch with Ms Righetti suggesting she would be a “perfect fit” for a new role as a senior development planner with property development firm Banks Group Ltd.
After a three-hour second interview she was offered the job and the firm expressed “very positive comments” about the applicant. She accepted the offer three days later.
READ MORE: Factory worker 'fired on the spot' for wearing crucifix awarded £22,000
The tribunal was told that in or around this time, Andy Liddell of Banks contacted Mr Dodson to ask for information about the claimant including why she had left her old job.
Banks later contacted contacted Ms Johnson to say that the job offer had been withdrawn because two “soft references” had reflected badly on the claimant and her behaviour.
This led to Ms Righetti lodging an employment tribunal claiming victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
The Barratts boss denied that any aspect of the grievance related to him and claimed he wasn’t aware of the settlement.
However, the tribunal concluded that this was “implausible”.
READ MORE: Property firm sacked employee over pregnancy miscarriage
Banks claimed that they were “uncomfortable” that she had asked for more money than the advertised salary of £60,000 per annum.
However, the tribunal was told that the recruitment consultant had encouraged her to seek a higher salary.
Banks also said there was an issue over training because Ms Righetti had been out of work for around a year but this had not raised with her at any point before she was offered the job.
The company also claimed she had taken too long to respond to the job offer but it was accepted within three days.
Employment Judge Muriel Robison said the claimant was “credible and reliable” in giving her evidence and Barratts was ordered to pay their former employee £16,265 in compensation.
She said: “We accepted Mr Maclean’s (the claimant’s lawyer) submission that Mr Dodson had a motive or justification for providing a negative reference, which amounts to a detriment, and that the reason he did that was, at least, significantly influenced by the fact that she settled a claim against the respondent.
“We did not accept the evidence of Mr Dodson that he had not given the claimant a negative reference, indeed his evidence was that he did not give a reference at all, and we did not accept that.
“We had no hesitation in concluding, based on the facts found, that the reason for giving the claimant a negative reference was because she had previously made and settled a claim against the respondent under the Equality Act.”
.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel