City banker couple are ordered to pay ex-nanny £7,000 for ‘injury to feelings’ after she discovered they had reported her to police over fears she had faked her CV
- Melanie and Stephen Griffiths found guilty of victimising nanny Ilkay Cetin
- The couple spoke to police about concerns of the nanny’s ‘appropriateness’
- Ms Cetin sued them and said the ‘core of her personality’ had been attacked
- A tribunal awarded Ms Cetin £7,000 compensation for injury to feelings
A City banker couple have been ordered to pay their former nanny £7,000 after they reported her to police following fears she had faked her CV.
Melanie and Stephen Griffiths have been found guilty of victimising Ilkay Cetin after speaking to an officer about their concerns she was not an ‘appropriate’ person to have cared for their two young children.
The couple – who worked at US investment giant JP Morgan as a private banker and managing director respectively – made the call after Ms Cetin, who is of Kurdish heritage, had accused them of racism while working for them.
An employment tribunal heard that after Ms Cetin took legal action against the bankers – including claims that she had been the victim of ’emotional torture,’ and ‘slavery’ – Mrs Griffiths launched her own investigation into the nanny.
As part of her enquiries she gathered references from her previous employers and called the police to run retrospective checks on her DBS certificate, the tribunal was told.
This led her to tell officers that she ‘had reason to be doubtful whether Ms Cetin had in fact been an appropriate person to look after her children,’ the panel heard.
The police then told Mrs Griffiths that ‘there was some question mark over (the nanny) and that had she contacted them before employing (her) to look after their children, they would have advised against it,’ the tribunal was told.
Melanie (pictured) and Stephen Griffiths have been found guilty of victimising Ilkay Cetin
Stephen Griffiths worked at US investment giant JP Morgan as a managing director
When she discovered that the couple had spoken to the police, Ms Cetin sued them for victimisation, claiming the ‘core of her personality and values’ had been attacked.
And she has now won compensation after the tribunal upheld that part of her claim.
The central London hearing was told that Ms Cetin worked as a nanny for the couple looking after their two young children between December 2017 and May 2018.
Her contract ended on what appeared to be good terms with the couple recommending the nanny to friends, hiring her for an additional two days in May, and inviting her to keep in touch with the children, the panel was told.
Ms Cetin however, ‘harboured concerns and resentments’ against some of the Griffiths’ ‘behaviour and speech to her,’ the tribunal heard.
The nanny lodged her first claim not long after her employment had ended, the panel was told.
Ms Cetin made several allegations including those for ‘unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions to wages, racism, discrimination, emotional torture and slavery,’ the panel heard.
Mrs Griffiths reacted to the legal action by making her own enquiries.
She believed she had discovered anomalies in the nanny’s CV and sought to obtain references from her former employers and educational establishments, the panel heard.
She called the police in August 2018 to tell them that she ‘had reason to be doubtful whether Ms Cetin had in fact been an appropriate person to look after her children,’ the panel heard.
An employment tribunal heard that after Ms Cetin took legal action against the bankers – including claims that she had been the victim of ’emotional torture,’ and ‘slavery’ – Mrs Griffiths launched her own investigation into the nanny (file photo)
The tribunal heard that the police told her there was a ‘question mark’ over Ms Cetin, ‘advice’ that the panel expressed ‘surprise and concern’ about because it had been given in an informal manner.
Ms Cetin found out about Mrs Griffiths’ contact with the police in November 2019 and added it to her legal action because of the significant ‘injury to feelings’ that it had caused, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal was told that in January 2020, Ms Cetin set up a website on which she posted information about child abuse – unrelated to the Griffiths’ – as well as her ongoing legal dispute with the couple.
The nanny told the tribunal that the purpose of her website posts in relation to the couple was to protect herself against false allegations.
Ms Cetin ensured that the full names of both Mr and Mrs Griffiths were included which meant that anybody doing an internet search of those names would be immediately directed to her website, the panel heard.
Mrs Griffiths found out about the website shortly after it was created, when searching on her own name, the tribunal was told.
The couple became concerned that anybody searching for their name before employing one of them would be directed to the website, and would see the postings about child abuse, the panel heard.
Mrs Griffiths believed that the website amounted to harassment, and reported the matter to police, but was told that it was a civil dispute, the tribunal heard.
The panel found that in November, 2020, Ms Cetin sent an email from an unknown address to Mr Griffiths’ employer, containing links to the judgments on their legal dispute which was ‘obviously designed to embarrass’ him.
The central London hearing was told that Ms Cetin worked as a nanny for the couple looking after their two young children between December 2017 and May 2018 (stock image)
The police contacted Ms Cetin later that month to warn her that if the behaviour was to continue, it ‘might require investigation and potentially arrest for the offence of harassment,’ the tribunal was told.
The nanny told the tribunal that being reported to the police suggested that she ‘might not be an appropriate person to look after children,’ and said that she was made to feel that the ‘core of her personality and values’ had been attacked.
The tribunal heard that Ms Cetin has since applied unsuccessfully for various jobs, including two with the police and one as an interpreter with the civil service.
The nanny’s claims against the couple of race discrimination and harassment were dismissed. However, her claim of victimisation in relation to Mrs Griffiths speaking to the police about her, was upheld.
Judge Oliver Segal concluded that ‘whilst the reporting of the nanny to the police was a ‘one off’ event, it caused considerable shock and upset initially and an ongoing sense of concern in relation to future employment prospects.’
The tribunal awarded Ms Cetin the sum of £7,000 compensation for injury to feelings.
Since leaving JP Morgan, both Melanie and Stephen Griffiths work at private investment services companies Equiom and Sarnac Partners respectively.
Source: Read Full Article
