Ageing Badly: Employers Ordered to “Fork Out” After Discriminatory “Grandma Jibes”

March 11, 2026

Employers are increasingly scrutinising workplace culture; grievance handling and the risks associated with management decisions. A recent Tribunal case, A Petroi v The Soho Sandwich Company Ltd, illustrates how ineffective communication, procedural shortcomings and a lack of strategy when dealing with workplace tensions can escalate into Tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, age discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Despite the employers attempts to investigate and reconcile its workplace culture, the Tribunal found that key procedural failings, combined with direct age‑related remarks made by senior managers, breached the trust and confidence that all employees are entitled to.

Remarks such as “the employee is so old she gets angry” and “the employee is like my grandmother” led the Tribunal to uphold multiple claims, awarding the employee £60,747.53, which included compensation for discrimination, loss of earnings, unpaid holiday, unauthorised deductions and an ACAS discretionary uplift.

Background

The employee was employed as a line leader with the employer from 2008 until her resignation on 27 May 2022. Tensions arose following conversations with a colleague and managers that the employee perceived as disrespectful, age‑related and dismissive.

Key incidents included:

  • Two altercations in which a colleague allegedly mocked the employee and referred to her as “like my grandmother.”
  • Comments by managers referring to “young people needing more motivation” than the employee because of her age.
  • Comments from senior management stating: “They are young… leave them alone, we are busy.”
  • Failure to investigate the employees grievance properly, including not interviewing requested witnesses and failing to investigate the two altercations reasonably. Managers also stated, “what is important at your age is peace, health and family.” CCTV footage was refused during the investigation of the first altercation.
  • Confusion around the employees job role and seniority, including comments suggesting “things have changed” when she sought clarification on her role.
  • Payroll concerns, including:
    • Incorrect recording of the employees start date.
    • Fourteen years of incorrectly recorded statutory holiday entitlement.
    • Only being paid statutory sick pay for sick leave and being informed she would be deducted a full weeks salary.

After discovering various payroll concerns, the employee emailed the employer outlining these concerns. She then resigned immediately, citing unfair treatment, discrimination and lack of support as her primary reasons for leaving.

    Tribunal Decision

    The Tribunal found that a cumulative series of actions by the employer were unlawful and constituted a breach of the duty of trust and confidence owed to the employee. The claims upheld included:

    • Constructive unfair dismissal – the demotion like treatment of the employees status and age‑related remarks caused her resignation.
    • Direct age discrimination – the employer did not provide a non‑discriminatory justification for the comments made. The Tribunal determined they did not serve any legitimate business aim.
    • Harassment related to age – the “grandmother” references and comparisons between older and younger staff amounted to unwanted conduct related to age, with the reasonable effect of humiliating the employee.
    • Victimisation – the employer subjected the employee to detriments after she raised a discrimination concern.
    • Holiday pay claim – the employee had effectively been refused four additional statutory holiday days per year.
    • Breach of contract – the employee was denied eight days per year that should have been received in lieu and was owed an additional 1.6 days under the Working Time Regulations. This coincided with an upheld unauthorised deductions claim.

    The Tribunal awarded the employee injury to feelings of £11,000, uplifted by 15% for ACAS Code breaches. The employee also suffered 12 months net earnings loss, uplifted by 15% plus interest, totalling £29,521.11. The total award was £60,747.53.

    Lessons for Employers
    1. Investigate complaints fully

    Failing to interview requested witnesses or review available evidence will be viewed negatively by a Tribunal. Employers should ensure grievances are well‑handled and allow employees the opportunity to provide witness evidence.

    1. Avoid assumptions or generalisations

    Comments about what is “important at your age” or suggesting that younger staff “need more motivation” were central to the discrimination findings. Employers should avoid generalisations on age and base it on individual features.

    1. Maintain accurate records and systems

    Incorrect HR entries, payroll errors and misapplied holiday entitlements contributed to additional findings. Employers should review payroll and HR systems annually to identify inaccuracies before they become liabilities.

    How we can help

    For further information, or to discuss the issues raised in this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

    Darren Smith
    Partner, Employment
    <script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
    View profileContact Us

    This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

    Latest Legal Insights