In Ms Y Z v Greenland (United Kingdom) Investment Limited (1) Mr Ling Luan (2) Ms. YZ was employed as a deputy design director at Greenland Investment until her employment ended in March 2021. She had relocated to the UK from China for the role and approached the company’s CEO in May 2020 to seek support for her application for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK.
However, in July 2020, the company gave her notice of termination without following any procedure. In August, she encountered issues with her ILR application and informed the tribunal that Greenland had forced her to resign before it would provide support.
At a tribunal held last November, her former employer argued that it had advised her to hire a solicitor to assist with her ILR application and that discussions about potentially making her role redundant due to lack of work had taken place before August 2020. The company and its deputy HR director claimed Ms. YZ had offered to sign a resignation letter to protect the business against any future claims.
By October 2020, she was informed her position had been terminated and her employment had ended on 30 September 2020, when her Tier 2 visa expired. However, workloads at the company improved, and she was re-employed on 5 December 2020, receiving a new employee number. Her ILR was granted in January 2021.
Later that month, following Ms. YZ’s appraisal, there was a discussion about her being open to alternative work as much of her own work had diminished. She resisted the idea of being placed on furlough and was at risk of redundancy in February 2021. She submitted a formal grievance, but her employment ended on 11 March 2021 when Greenland made a deduction regarding holiday pay.
Her harassment claim was based on the company’s alleged failure to support her ILR application and a comment from the HR director that her trousers made her look like a “frumpy grandmother/auntie.”
In a judgment published last week, the tribunal concluded that she had not been subjected to less favourable treatment, noting that in many instances, Ms. YZ had raised a hypothetical comparator rather than an actual one. Regarding the comment about her trousers, it ruled that “such a comment was unwanted conduct related to sex” because it was inherently linked to gender and “had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant’s dignity.” However, the tribunal noted that this incident had occurred in November 2020, outside the time limits for lodging a claim with Acas or a tribunal.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
