She lost nearly every claim she brought. And she still walked away with £264,442.09.
That is the reality of Ong v Aberystwyth University – and it is a case every HR professional, business owner and manager needs to understand. Not because of the discrimination arguments. All but one of them failed. But because of what happened alongside and after the employment ended.
Let me break it down.
Who Was Peak Ong and what actually happened?
Peak Ong worked as a part-time cleaner at Aberystwyth University. Fifteen hours a week, Monday to Friday, 6am to 9am. She started in 2014. By the time her employment ended in May 2022, she had been through years of disputes with her manager, multiple formal complaints, a mediation, a disciplinary process and ultimately dismissal.
She then brought three tribunal claims covering almost 50 complaints including age discrimination, race discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and 22 separate complaints of victimisation.
She lost the vast majority of them. Almost every single discrimination claim was dismissed – she only succeeded on one.
Only two findings survived the lengthy tribunal process. And they cost the university over a quarter of a million pounds in an award alone (not to mention the other costs associated with manager time and legal fees!).
Finding One: The Dismissal Was Substantively and Procedurally Unfair
This is important – and it is a distinction that many employers miss.
The tribunal did not just find that the university got the process wrong (though it did). It found the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. That means the reason itself did not hold up as affair reason in the eyes of the law, and neither did the way the process was run.
On the substance, the dismissal was for some other substantial reason – specifically, a breakdown in the working relationship between Ong and her manager.
On the process, the tribunal identified serious failures:
The disciplinary was built on a mediation agreement the university wasn’t party to.
The mediation between Ong and her manager was described as confidential. Its content was not fed back to HR or recorded on personnel files. The university was not a signatory to it. Yet they relied on an alleged breach of that agreement as the basis for disciplinary action. The tribunal questioned directly whether they were entitled to do that at all.
The allegations were never properly put to her.
Ong’s suspension letter failed to give specific details of the alleged acts of misconduct – a direct breach of the university’s own disciplinary procedure. She could not properly respond to allegations she had never been clearly told.
*on a side note here I see this time and time again and when clarity is sought employers get defensive and refuse to provide the information needed to properly respond. If you have an issue with your staff tell them the details so they can properly engage and so you have a throughout and fair process to fall back on!
There was no appeal.
Ong appealed the disciplinary decision. The university did not action that appeal. The tribunal called this a “fundamental failing” and a breach of both the university’s own policy and the ACAS Code of Practice. That is about as direct as employment judges get.
Your processes are important when it comes to both avoiding and defending these types of claims. This is the pattern I see again and again. Employers focus so hard on the outcome they want that they rush the process to get there. And then they end up in a tribunal defending not just whether the decision was right, but whether the employee ever had a fair chance to challenge it.
A fair process is not bureaucracy. It is your only real defence.
Finding Two: The Reference
This is the part of this case that every employer in the country should be sitting with right now.
After Ong was dismissed, she applied for a role as a night care assistant with Ceredigion Council. She got a conditional offer. The council requested a reference from Aberystwyth University.
A HR business partner at the university completed the reference form. The form asked about Ong’s honesty and integrity, her working relationships with colleagues and the public, her disciplinary record and her reason for leaving.
For every single question, he wrote:
“Unable to comment – the University remains in dispute with the applicant and this is a factor of the dispute and the University remains in dispute with the applicant.”
The job offer was withdrawn as a result.
The tribunal was clear. That reference was not required to fulfil any obligation to provide a fair reference. The inclusion of those words was likely to harm Ong’s employment prospects, and it did. Employment Judge Bansal described the university’s conduct as “irresponsible and retaliatory.” The tribunal found it was directly linked to the discrimination claims being brought.
It was victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. A protected act in her bringing a tribunal claim – had been followed by a detriment (the retaliatory reference). The consequence was significant.
The judge put it plainly: but for the university’s unlawful act, Ong would have started working for the council. Because she did not, she lost the opportunity to remain economically active for the rest of her working life. She was 69 at the time of dismissal.
That is where the bulk of the award came from. £141,348.33 for future loss of earnings alone. Plus pension contributions. Plus tax on the award. Plus injury to feelings.
All of it flowing from one response repeated across a reference form.
What This Means for You
If you are an employer, an HR leader or a manager, here are the two key takeaways from this case.
- Your processes matter. When it comes to avoiding and defending these types of claims, a fair, well-documented process is everything. The university successfully defended the vast majority of the discrimination claims brought against it – but the substantive issues with the reason for the dismissal, coupled with the procedural failings meant it could not defend the unfair dismissal claim. Each failure compounded the last.
- References must be fair, accurate and above reproach. Ensure that any reference provided is a true reflection of the facts and cannot be seen as retaliatory. The moment the university included the words “remains in dispute with the applicant” across every question on that form, it crossed a line. It served no legitimate purpose. And the tribunal found it was directly linked to the tribunal claim she had brought. If you are asked to provide a reference for someone involved in an active dispute, take legal advice before you write a single word.
If you are unsure at any stage whether you are an inhouse GC, HR partner or founder – take advice as soon as possible as this can usually be avoided when you do.
The Bigger Picture
Peak Ong lost almost everything she argued for. The bulk of the discrimination case – the one she clearly felt most strongly about, the one that had been building for years – was almost entirely dismissed.
But she still won. And she won big.
Because the university, having successfully defended so many of the discrimination claims, handed the case straight back to Ong with a reference form.
Employment law is not just about whether you have a genuine issue with an employee, if about fitting this properly into the legal framework first. It is about how you treat people on the way out. And what you do – or say – afterwards.
The £264,442.09 in this case is a consequence of process failures and a retaliatory act. Neither of those required any discriminatory intent. They just required carelessness, and a desire to have the last word.
Thrive Law is an award winning employment law firm with a national reach. If you need advice on disciplinary processes, fair dismissal or managing references in contentious situations, get in touch with our team on enquiries@thrivelaw.co.uk for a confidential chat.
Further Reading
The full judgment
GOV.UK decision page: Ms P Ong v Aberystwyth University – GOV.UK
Full judgment PDF (89 pages): Download PDF
Case reference: Ms P E Ong v Aberystwyth University – 1600183/2021, 1601256/2022, 1600914/2024
Media coverage
Personnel Today – Retaliatory reference in rice cooker dispute rinses university of £264k
HR Magazine – Tribunal awards £264k to unfairly dismissed cleaner
North Wales Live – Cleaner at Welsh university awarded £264k after row over rice cooker
Cambrian News – Aberystwyth University ordered to pay £264,442 to unfairly sacked cleaner
