"A chair of trustees such as Mr Davies would have great authority to speak on [AVOW's] behalf... it was reprehensible for Mr Gallanders (who was not himself a trustee) to write a letter in Mr Davies’ name, without his consent..."
"Mr Gallanders was not simply manipulating the body of trustees to achieve the outcome he wanted, he was usurping their role by reaching their decisions for them."
"This is a conclusion that we reach in only exceptional cases, but we have reached it in this case without hesitation: from start to finish, the grievance processes were a sham."
"The trustees merely listened to what the claimant said and took no proper decisions in response. They deferred all such decisions to the officers. They failed in their duties to oversee the conduct of the officers. The fact that they are unpaid volunteers is no excuse."
"Most serious of all was the lack of any proper attempt to deal with the claimant’s grievance against Mr Gallanders."
"It was clear to us that, all along, Mr Gallanders had wanted the claimant's appeal to fail and had been looking for a basis on which to reject it."
"It was not enough for the respondent to simply arrange for meetings where the trustees would say, in effect 'we'll get back to you' and then not to do so. The effect of Dr Rosenberg's letter was to erect a stone wall between the claimant and the trustees..."
"Mr Gallanders responded to the claimant's third formal grievance... We agree with the claimant that this letter was written in a hostile tone. In particular, it added to the height of the metaphorical stone wall that was being erected between the claimant and the trustees, which was entirely inappropriate given that her outstanding complaints were all against him and there was no-one else to whom she could turn to pursue them."
"[T]hroughout the claimant's employment and up until the moment she resigned, the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments."
"[The Optometrist's] report was not fit for the purpose of being the 'Occupational Health Assessment carried out by an Ophthalmic specialist' that Mr Gallanders had promised..."
"[T]he respondent victimised the claimant... That victimisation took various forms: the initial reluctance of Mr Gallanders to accept the claimant... under TUPE; his expressed desire to be 'awkward' with her on the issue of medical evidence; his stubborn refusal... to make reasonable adjustments...; his control of the respondent's internal procedures so as to deprive her of a meaningful resolution to her grievances; his subsequent refusal to allow her access to the trustees for redress; his unilateral withdrawal of the whistleblowing policy...; worst of all, his 'long shot' of trying to show her instability by seeking an unnecessary enhanced CRB disclosure... This last step was reprehensible (a word we do not use lightly) and an abuse of his position..."
