For guidance on victimisation, employment references or disciplinary procedures, call us on 0330 123 9501 or fill in the form below to speak with one of our experts.
A university was ordered to pay over £264,000 after an Employment Tribunal found that a reference referring to an ongoing dispute amounted to victimisation.
22 June 2026
Case Study
In Ong v Aberystwyth University, the Birmingham Employment Tribunal (ET) awarded more than £264,000 to a cleaner who was dismissed at the age of 69.
Ms Ong worked as a cleaner in the University’s halls of residence. She was dismissed after allegedly breaching the outcome of a mediation that had been arranged between her and her line manager. There was a lengthy history of disagreement between them. Ms Ong had previously raised a number of grievances, while her manager complained that she was unmanageable and that the situation was affecting the wider team. Colleagues had also reportedly complained about the impact on their wellbeing.
An external mediation was arranged and appeared to result in agreement. However, Ms Ong was later accused of breaching the confidentiality surrounding the mediation. She was suspended and subsequently dismissed.
Following her dismissal, Ms Ong was offered a role with a local authority. As part of its recruitment process, the authority requested a reference from the University. The University responded that it was unable to provide a detailed reference because it remained in dispute with the applicant. The local authority subsequently withdrew its conditional job offer.
Ms Ong brought claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, disability discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation. Although her discrimination claims failed, her unfair dismissal and victimisation claims succeeded.
In relation to unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the mediation agreement was a private agreement between Ms Ong and her line manager which had been facilitated by the University. The University was not itself a party to the agreement and, importantly, Ms Ong had never been informed that an alleged breach could lead to disciplinary action.
The Tribunal also criticised the University’s procedure, finding that the suspension letter did not adequately set out the allegations, those allegations were not properly explained during the disciplinary process, and no appeal hearing was held.
Case Study
Perhaps most significantly, the Tribunal found that Ms Ong had been victimised when the reference was provided.
The reference stated that she remained in dispute with the University. The Tribunal concluded that this statement was not necessary to provide a fair reference. The dispute referred to an earlier Employment Tribunal complaint and grievance, both of which constituted protected acts under the Equality Act 2010.
Describing the reference as “irresponsible and retaliatory”, the Tribunal found that it had been provided because of those protected acts and therefore amounted to unlawful victimisation.
Although Ms Ong was a relatively low-paid part-time worker, the compensation awarded was substantial. Her unfair dismissal award was approximately £3,200, while injury to feelings compensation totalled £12,000 plus interest. The largest element of the award related to future loss of earnings arising from both the loss of her employment and the withdrawal of the subsequent job offer, amounting to approximately £141,000. After pension losses and grossing up were applied, the total award reached £264,442.
While the unfair dismissal finding was significant, the reference ultimately proved to be the most costly aspect of this case. The decision is an important reminder that victimisation claims can arise long after employment has ended and that references must be approached carefully where there has been previous litigation or workplace complaints.
Employers should:
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More