Discrimination Complaint Can go Forward

A woman who alleges she faced sexual discrimination while working at the southern civic amenity site has been granted permission to continue her claim.

A panel, chaired by Douglas Stewart, has ruled that while Lindsay Maddrell’s claim was made out of time, it was just and equitable to allow her claim to proceed.

Ms Maddrell worked at the site in January 2021 to March 2023, during which time she claims to have tolerated
conduct which she alleged ‘went beyond workplace banter and into areas of discrimination’.

During this time, she was not an employee of the Southern Civic Amenity Site Board, rather she was employed as agency staff from EPL Recruitment Limited.

Following an incident on March 31 2023, Ms Maddrell decided she had had enough of the alleged misconduct and contacted a Port Erin commissioner, Hayley Fox, they met on April 4 to discuss the matters and provided her with a list of issues which Ms Fox didn’t think it was appropriate to retain.

The matter was then raised with Godfrey Egee, chair of Port Erin Commissioners and the information was also shared with Jeremy Ludford-Brooks as chair of the board of the amenity site.

The panel’s report says that Mr Ludford-Brooks and Ms Maddrell spoke on April 5 where she made clear allegations involving fraud.

The report said: ‘Although Mr Ludford-Brooks recalled fraud being raised to the extent that he thought that might be a matter for the police, he did not remember that he had two different conversations with Ms Maddrell. He stuck to his belief of a solitary call on April 6. It became increasingly evident from his answers that his recollection from last April was, in general, somewhat hazy.’

However, the panel’s report goes on to say that as the clerk was on holiday at the time, nothing progressed on these allegations until April 17, at which time Expol was instructed to carry out an independent investigation.

The panel said that this led to ‘disciplinary procedures’ but it hd not seen evidence of the allegations made.

During the conversation between Mr Ludford-Brooks and Ms Maddrell, it was agreed that she shouldn’t go into work as planned on April 9 and that she should inform her employment agency, EPL Recruitment, that she was taking time off.

There was then come confusion between EPL Recruitment and Ms Maddrell over her status at the site, which the panel said should’ve been better resolved.

The clerk, Jason Roberts, later emailed EPL to say that Ms Maddrell’s services were no longer required, the agency failed to inform her of this, which the panel said was ‘unfortunate’.

The confusion over this was evident when she emailed Mr Ludford-Brooks on April 20 asking for advice on what to tell people who were asking if she had left and said that hearing she had been sacked was ‘upsetting’.

She was not told that her role had been terminated and even as late as April 24, 13 days after it was decided she was no longer required, EPL had not told her either.

The company later replied to her on April 26 to say that ‘Jason did let me know you had left’.

Ms Maddrell then emailed Mr Ludford-Brooks to say: ‘Today I communicated with EPL … and was told that Jason Roberts had informed them that I had left; the telephone call took place some 3 ½ weeks ago. To say that I was shocked is an understatement as I was under the impression that as per your guidance my absence was to prevent further intimidation from (names withheld).

‘Having worked faithfully at the Southern Amenity Site for over 2 years I thought that I might have been contacted to ascertain why I was allegedly leaving after the protracted period of time so quickly. It is now approaching 4 weeks since matters were brought out into the open and I have not worked since and I feel in limbo no one has made contact to what I feel are serious matters raised.’

She received no reply and on April 27, EPL told her that Expol was investigating the claims she had made.

All of this led into the confusion as to the timeframe that Ms Maddrell had to make a complaint to the Employment and Equality Tribunal. This has to be done within three months of the alleged incidents.

The panel ruled that it was not able to grant an extension to the whistleblowing claim as it was reasonable to have expected Ms Maddrell to have lodged a complaint in time.

However, it agreed that the allegation of detriment following discrimination can proceed.

You can read the full panel report here.