A former employee of a well known estate agents has lost her case at an employment tribunal – even though the tribunal did find that she was harassed because of her sex.

The tribunal, at Watford, said of the case brought against Chancellors Group of Estate Agents that there had been harassment for several months between October 2015 and May 2016. The tribunal said her dignity had been violated.

However, it dismissed the claim because it says it was made out of time.

In its reserved judgement, the tribunal also dismissed all the other claims made by Miss S Vassar.

It said there was no fundamental breach of the claimant’s contract of employment, and that there had been no unfair dismissal.

It said there had been no less favourable treatment because of the claimant’s sex; that the claimant was not subjected to any other detriments; that she was not entitled to notice pay as she had resigned; and had not suffered any unlawful deduction of wages. A further issue, over holiday pay, had been resolved between the parties.

The complainant had alleged that a married colleague, identified as RC in the ruling, had asked her to have sex with him, saying that if she didn’t, he would tell people at work she had anyway. She said that rumours had indeed spread.

She also claimed that her line manager, also the area manager, identified as SR, had failed to record or act on her complaints.

The case involved a lengthy hearing, running to seven days, with members of the tribunal reading ‘several hundred pages’ of documents.

These included an email in which the claimant raised a formal grievance, saying: “I feel that over the last six months I have had to deal with sexual harassment, bullying and I also feel that I have not had the support of my direct manager in relation to these matters when raised and clearly whatever action was taken previously (none of which was discussed with me) has not been effective as lies are still being told about me to other members of staff . . . and I feel that formal action is the only way to put an end to this.”

A meeting took place shortly after, in May 2016, with Chancellors managing director Robert Scott-Lee, who investigated her grievances.

He subsequently found that RC’s communications with the complainant “may have been unacceptable to a greater extent”.

He added: “I can confirm that appropriate and corrective action will be taken to ensure this is not the case moving forwards.”

In September the same year, the claimant sent an email to Scott-Lee and HR about something that a negotiator had told her – rumours about “various men and women in the office” having sex.

The tribunal’s lengthy ruling goes on to reveal a number of other documented issues arising, and further emails and meetings.

The complainant resigned in May 2017.

In its ruling, the tribunal found that there was unwanted conduct by RC, which related to the complainant’s sex.

The ruling says: “We are satisfied that what RC said when he invited the claimant to enter into a personal sexual relationship with him and the suggestion that he would tell others that she had even if she hadn’t; appearing to follow her home in the car; being at least partly responsible for rumours being spread; making unpleasant remarks; poorer communication with the claimant than with others; comments made to third parties about the claimant and the comment that he made in late May 2016, are all matters which related to her sex and violated her dignity or created an intimidating, etc, environment.

“We accept that it was reasonable for her to believe that. In summary, the claimant has shown that harassment of her by RC occurred between October 2015 and May 2016.”

However, because the claimant complained beyond the time limit, this was dismissed, along with all her other claims.

Robert Scott-Lee told EYE after the tribunal published its judgement this week: “It would of course be inappropriate to comment in any depth on this matter but we do take employee relations matters very seriously and accordingly we were pleased that the employment tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss all claims against the company that had been raised.

“We of course note the conclusions the tribunal reached regarding the alleged conduct of an ex-employee but are gratified that their conclusions support the actions taken by our directors when following our internal processes and procedures.”