Calling a work colleague a ‘grow up’ is not age-old in a case brought by a juvenile apprentice by a tribunal. Jasmine Stunell, a hairdressing apprentice, sued her former boss for age discrimination after she was allegedly commented on by a co-worker when she was just 16 years old.
An employment tribunal heard that the young stylist was also asked to ‘pull himself together’.
Ms Stunell later brought claims of age discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal after leaving the salon.
But the panel rejected them as it found that the remarks could be said to anyone – especially older people.
It said: “The Tribunal does not find that the terms ‘grow up’ and ‘pull yourself together’ are in themselves age-related and can be said to anyone, and especially to any person who acts in a childish manner. working from.”
Ms Stunell began working as a stylist at the Leo Bancroft Salon in Weybridge, Surrey, where she studied for a Saturday vocational qualification in January 2017 before becoming an apprentice seven months later.
At the end of her three-month probation period, owner and manager Leo Bancroft raised some issues with Ms. Stunell’s performance.
The panel heard that she would hide during the day, be late, use her mobile phone and have a poor general attitude towards customers.
But her performance improved and she was officially made an apprentice at the salon in February 2018, where she is said to have a ‘very good retention record’, with 70 percent of the stylists being fully trained by Mr. Bancroft.
Ms Stunell then alleged that a colleague, Amy Frith, told her to ‘grow up’ and drag herself through a toilet door while she was sick, the panel heard.
But the Tribunal accepted Ms Frith’s version of events, which she declined to comment on and feared vomiting, so would not have come close.
In addition, Ms Stunell claimed that, in an online group chat used by the salon, a co-worker had said she should be replaced with someone more reliable.
The tribunal found that this was also not related to age and would have been said of any member of staff who was late or missing without explanation during the day.
The panel was told that Ms Stunell had been out of work on several occasions because of personal matters, but that Mr Bancroft was “very supportive” as she knew her home life was difficult.
When she walked out and resigned, he wrote to her to say she had “huge potential” and a “bright future”, the panel heard.
The tribunal ruled that Ms Stunell was not threatened or discriminated against at work.
Ms Stunel also claimed that she was not allowed to take the break but there was no evidence of it and rubbished all her claims.
The panel, headed by Employment Judge Anne Martin, concluded: “In all the circumstances, the Tribunal found that Ms Stunell’s claims are not well-founded and were dismissed.”
Solent News & Photo Agency
Credit: www.independent.co.uk /